 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / October 2007Medical Error/Negligence
Daily from around the world We have read a news on the internet, news paper or magazine about medical profession made some wrong treatment or intervention to the patient. Whether it is causes dead cases or injury to the patient. read more : http://nurse-ocha.blogspot.com Or whether it kills one's ability to to write in simple English. > Or whether it kills one's ability to to write in simple English. Lena got an a/k/a?? Otis hitting the crack pipe again?? Atchoo overdid the "rest methods??" Hm. >Atchoo overdid the "rest methods??" Don't be so silly! One cannot overdid the rest methods. IT is impossible. Rest is something constant, the normal eye is always in that state, always shifting and without effort, it is always at a rest. Rest, in the reference of rest methods, is merely an abscense of strain, not an addition of anything. You see, to do anything extra requires undue effort, and an undue effort always lowers the sight! > >Atchoo overdid the "rest methods??" > > Rest is something constant, the normal eye is always in that state, > always shifting and without effort, it is always at a rest. really? even when accommodating at approximately 5D? > You see, to do anything extra requires undue > and an undue effort always lowers the sight! really? so sight is lowered when accommodating to read at near? how come acuity is the same when the visual angle is measured at near (the ciliary muscle is working) or at far (when the ciliary muscle is relaxed)? How come uncorrected hyperopes have normal visual acuity even though they are alway "working" to clear their distance vision. at one point you stated you came to this forum to learn. how come you always make proclamations of fact about things that you don't know anything about? Don't be so stupid pclar. You know perfectly well that your use of the word 'relax' is different from mine. So you should not say such stupid things. >really? even when accommodating at approximately 5D? Yes, a person with perfect sight at 5D, is at rest. When not at rest, the sight becomes imperfect. Accomodation does not mean 'unrest', it just means accomodation. Accomodation can be accompanied by rest, no troubles. Now stop bringing that stupid argument, please! >always make proclamations of fact about things that you don't know I know that when the mind is at rest, the sight is perfect. That is a fact, demonstratable. >really? so sight is lowered when accommodating to read at near? No, sight is not lowered if the eye is at rest. > >really? so sight is lowered when accommodating to read at near? > > No, sight is not lowered if the eye is at rest. beavis, go away. your show has been cancelled. nobody thinks you're funny anymore. > go away. your show has been cancelled. nobody thinks you're funny This is not a matter of funny or not funny. This is not a joke, stupid man. The cure of imperfect sight is a serious business, and will help many to restore sight and relieve many of their suffering. If you think of it as a joke; then so be it you dweeb. > > go away. your show has been cancelled. nobody thinks you're funny > > The cure of imperfect sight is a serious business, and will help many > to restore sight and relieve many of their suffering. you pathetic pimple-faced twit. you know NOTHING about helping people restore their vision. you don't even understand 1% of the published information about the human visual system. you just believe a bunch of foolishness that somebody thought sounded good decades ago so they wrote it down, and now a few gullible sheep like yourself follow it despite the fact that it doesn't work and there is no evidence to support it. just because very few people take the time to go to your internet forums and write out messages telling you what they did and that it failed doesn't mean that it actually works. once they try your silly relaxation methods, find out that they don't work, and then realize that they've been tricked by some stupid zealot 15 year old kid who hasn't even graduated from middle school yet then they get embarrassed and leave and never come back again. for some reason you take that as evidence that you have helped them. what a moron. why not publish a study where ~50 persons are treated with your method and their refractions are carefully determined before and after the treatment (by someone who has some real training and actually knows what they are doing) and then announce the results? I know what you'll say-- "no one has to prove it to me because I already know that it works". you're scared because you know your methods simply won't work any better than having the persons take a laxative and take a big dump. you are not smart enough to organize a study, incapable of managing the participants, and ignorant about how to analyze the data. so instead you'll just cop-out and say it isn't necessary. prediction-- you will never amount to anything in your whole lifetime. > >always make proclamations of fact about things that you don't know > > I know that when the mind is at rest, the sight is perfect. > That is a fact, demonstratable. Even in blind people? Learn something new every day. >Even in blind people? Learn something new every day. Yes, for blind people the cure by rest treatment is precisely the same. > Yes, for blind people the cure by rest treatment is precisely the same. Like magic. -MT It is like magic, a bit. But really cure is only nature functioning in the perfect way, in the eyemind. > It is like magic, a bit. > But really cure is only nature functioning in the perfect way, in the > eyemind. From Wiki: Noting the great similarity of magical thinking in all types of human societies and eras of recorded history, some cognitive scientists suggest that these ways of thinking are intrinsic to humanity. Many articles in neuroscience have shown that the human brain excels at pattern matching, but that humans do not have a good filter for distinguishing between perceived patterns and actual patterns. This makes good sense from an evolutionary perspective: if you see a pattern that might indicate that there is a tiger hiding in the long grass, you are better off assuming that there is one there than waiting for better evidence. Likewise, if you get sick after eating a certain berry, it is a safer bet to assume that the berry caused the sickness. A consequence, however, is that people often see "relationships" between actions that don't actually exist, creating a magical belief. Much scientific research in cognitive science supports this view. For example, people tend to seek confirmation of their hypotheses, rather than seeking refutation as in the scientific method - an example of confirmation bias. Many of these heuristics are believed to be imbedded into the human psyche. People are also reluctant to change their beliefs, even when presented with evidence, and often prefer to believe contradictory things rather than change pre-existing beliefs. This phenomenon is known as belief perseverance, which may lead to cognitive dissonance. Magical thinking is often intensified in mental illnesses such as obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), clinical depression or schizotypal personality disorder.[citation needed] In each it can take a different form peculiar to the particular illness. In OCD, it is often used in ritual fashion to ameliorate the dread and risk of various dangerous possibilities, regardless of whether it has real effects on the object of fear. It contributes more to peace of mind, in that the person now feels they can engage in a risky activity more safely. This is not unlike magical thinking in non-afflicted individuals; lucky garments and activities are common in the sports world. It begins to interfere with life when those activities deemed risky are routine and everyday, such as meeting others, using a public toilet, crossing a busy intersection, or eating. It is important to note, however, that not all people with OCD engage in a strict form of magical thinking, as many are fully conscious that the rationalizations with which they justify their obsessions or compulsions to themselves and others are not 'reasonable' in an ordinary sense of that word. Psychometric evidence has been obtained showing a correlation between psychosis and magical thinking. It has been found that those who scored highest on magical thinking showed a predisposition to psychosis (Eckblad & Chapman, 1983). Schizophrenic patients scored higher on a magical thinking scale than non-schizophrenic psychiatric patients or normal subjects (George & Neufeld, 1987). Subjects believing in extraordinary phenomena scored higher on the Schizophrenia subscale of the MMPI than non-believers (Windholz & Diamant, 1974). Research has also shown that paranormal beliefs, including magical thinking, are significantly and positively correlated with people experiencing psychosis from schizophrenia and bipolar disorder (e.g., Thalbourne and French, 1995). I thought magic was the stuff that magicians and witches can do. You know, like David Copperfield and David Blaine and Harry Potter! >I thought magic was the stuff that magicians and witches can do. > You know, like David Copperfield and David Blaine and Harry Potter! In magic, the magician tricks you. In magical thinking, you trick yourself. Then you deny it. -MT >In magical thinking, you trick yourself. In a way Mike, you're analogy using magical thinking and tricking yourself and the rest methods which are used in the cure of imperfect sight is very accurate. The rest methods are just a few ways of tricking the mind into curing the sight, if you like it that way. Mind tricks are a help to the sight, that is the by the aids of perfect imagination and memory to 'trick' the sight into going perfect. But the self-tricking is not done unintentionally, as in the case of a magician->audience but instead it is done intentionally. > Mind > tricks are a help to the sight, that is the by the aids of perfect > imagination and memory to 'trick' the sight into going perfect. That's magical thinking, for sure. You got it. -MT >> Mind >> tricks are a help to the sight, that is the by the aids of perfect >> imagination and memory to 'trick' the sight into going perfect. > > That's magical thinking, for sure. You got it. I have another name for it, but common decency forbids ....  SignatureNicolaas. ... Never mess up an apology with an excuse. It sounds like magic to you but it isn't. Perfect imagination goes with perfect sight, and that is a demonstrated truth, for anyone who is willing to demonstrate. > It sounds like magic to you but it isn't. Perfect imagination goes > with perfect sight, and that is a demonstrated truth, for anyone who > is willing to demonstrate. Demonstrate means to show by reasoning. To prove. To explain by using examples and experiments. What you are suggesting has nothing to do with the verb "demonstrate." It's utter nonsense. Then you should demonstrate only for yourself, and not to prove to another person. The reasoning is apparent once the demonstration is performed. > Then you should demonstrate only for yourself, and not to prove to > another person. The reasoning is apparent once the demonstration is > performed. This is not the usual and customary meaning of the word. The fact is that you cannot demonstrate this to anybody, and so you must play word games to go along with your mind games. Why should you demonstrate to anyone else? It is only of benefit to you, the demonstration. To convince another person of it with talk is futile and useless as a form of evidence. To compel another person to demonstrate it to themselves is reasonable. The only thing you should be concerned with is in curing your own sight; and then you may go on to help others. > Why should you demonstrate to anyone else? > It is only of benefit to you, the demonstration. > To convince another person of it with talk is futile and useless as a > form of evidence. To compel another person to demonstrate it to > themselves is reasonable. The only thing you should be concerned with > is in curing your own sight; and then you may go on to help others. To convince... To compel. I would rather be convinced than compelled. If you were to practice what you preach, then you wouldn't feel "compelled" to be here spouting nonsense. I am not here to prove anything to anyone, thus it is not mandatory that you should feel compelled demonstrate anything at all; but I am not concerned with what you believe in or do not believe in. I am interested in those who are lost as a result of your incompetence and have come here as the followup. I am here to aid these people and direct them to the true cure of the defective sight. For those who desire proof; they should demonstrate it. For those who desire perfect sight, they should begin the rest treatments with intelligence. > I am not here to prove anything to anyone, thus it is not mandatory > that you should feel compelled demonstrate anything at all; but I am > not concerned with what you believe in or do not believe in. I am > interested in those who are lost as a result of your incompetence and > have come here as the followup. I am here to aid these people and > direct them to the true cure of the defective sight. ...through the misuse and abuse of the English language. > For those who desire proof; they should demonstrate it. For those who > desire perfect sight, they should begin the rest treatments with > intelligence. ...which adds up to total nonsense. I gather that belief in the "rest treatments" is incompatible with intelligence and reason. No, the contrary. An efficient use of rest methods requires a proficiency with intelligence and reason; that is the intelligence and reason found in common sense. > > I am not here to prove anything to anyone, thus it is not mandatory > > that you should feel compelled demonstrate anything at all; but I am [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > ...which adds up to total nonsense. I gather that belief in the "rest > treatments" is incompatible with intelligence and reason. You're missing the point, Dr. G. I fear others may be, too. What Zetsu, Otis, AND Lena are saying is that it only matters if you THINK you are seeing better. Using the diet analogy: as long as you BELIEVE that you are lighter or slimmer, then that is all that's important to them. You, on the other hand, actually seek to make people better, objectively. Atchoo, Scrotis, and Lena want people to BELIEVE that their cancer is gone ... even as it kills them. You and YOUR ilk actually want to treat the cancer. Vastly different standard. Where they fall utterly flat is in understanding that this approach is the ANTITHESIS of science, and doesn't belong on this board. >What Zetsu, Otis, AND Lena are saying is that it only matters if you >THINK you are seeing better. How the heck can a person only "think" they see better, unless they actually do? You either have perfect sight, and know it, or you don't. > >What Zetsu, Otis, AND Lena are saying is that it only matters if you > >THINK you are seeing better. > > How the heck can a person only "think" they see better, unless they > actually do? You either have perfect sight, and know it, or you don't. No. Again, here's one of your basic problems. You're never in doubt, but you are often wrong. People can think that they are pink elephants. The mind is a very powerful tool. Unfortunately, it doesn't always HAVE the influence that people would like to believe it does. My mother THINKS that she is, literally, taller after a session of yoga. That doesn't seem to bear up well under actual MEASUREMENT (look that up some time, will you?), though. Plus, please don't make me explain, AGAIN, the difference between subjective and objective, or blur interpretation and improved visual acuity. You seem simply NOT to get it. But ... as always ... and LIKE Scrotis and Lenaski, that DOESN'T seem to stop you from chiming in incessantly. Shame, really. When you have perfect sight, you'll know. Everything is effortless, you can see super depth, crystal clear. You just know; you don't need to measure. > When you have perfect sight, you'll know. > Everything is effortless, you can see super depth, crystal clear. > You just know; you don't need to measure. I ate a hearty breakfast this morning. I FEEL much taller. I KNOW I'm much taller. Why doesn't that damned tape measure agree with me. Ah, well. No matter. The fact that I FEEL taller is enough .... right, Atchoo? Incidentally, Gesundheit! > You're missing the point, Dr. G. I fear others may be, too. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Where they fall utterly flat is in understanding that this approach is > the ANTITHESIS of science, and doesn't belong on this board. Actually Neil you are missing the point here. (Disclaimer: I'm not "taking sides.") Vision is qualitative. If a person thinks they are seeing better then they are. Why do you need quantifiable proof for something you are experiencing directly? Objective measurements often have no correlation with the quality of vision. That is why OD's sometimes can't explain why someone's having vision problems. Everything may look normal, but still the patient complains of blurry vision. Or, for example, two people with the same measure of astigmatism may have very different levels of visual complaint. Cancer is not analogous unless you are talking about eye disease that is fatal or leads to blindness if left untreated. Most refractive errors, I believe, are not due to disease (Disclaimer: I am not an eye care professional, oh yeah, neither are you). In fact, as is stated over and over on this board, refractive errors, whether treated or not, do not progress or get worse because of (non)treatment. If you are to use the cancer analogy, then you must qualify what kinds of eye "treatments" you are talking about. Science can't explain or treat everything. For example, with cancer, to use your example, why is it that some people respond to "scientific" treatments and others do not? You don't think that frame of mind (I'm feeling/getting better) has anything to do with it? Good doctors who I've met treat the mind as well as the disease. How patients feel about themselves, the disease, the prognosis is ALL a part of the treatment. Neither medicine nor treatment is objective science. If it were, everyone would be cured with exactly the same treatment plan. And new treatments wouldn't be sought, or old ones discounted, nor would drugs, prescribed to millions one day, be pulled by the FDA the next. It's all one big experiment, isn't it? Your understanding of "science" is very limited. Perhaps you mean the "scientific method"? If that's the case, then you should say so. Signature~RT Yeah, what RT said! That's the things I am trying to say. > In article <1191603618.486572.88...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Actually Neil you are missing the point here. > (Disclaimer: I'm not "taking sides.") Unless, of course, you are, but .... I digress.... > Vision is qualitative. If a person thinks they are seeing better then > they are. Hypothesis contrary to fact. Vision can be measured subjectively and OBJECTIVELY. Just because I FEEL taller after a healthy breakfast does NOT mean that I am. > Why do you need quantifiable proof for something you are > experiencing directly? I'm sorry, but the answer to that is really quite obvious. Mike Tyner uses elephant repellent in his yard. He has NOT had an elephant sighting (still true, Mike??). HE may assert cause and effect there, but ... is probably dead ... assed ... wrong. Still with me? > Objective measurements often have no correlation > with the quality of vision. That is why OD's sometimes can't explain why > someone's having vision problems. Everything may look normal, but still > the patient complains of blurry vision. Or, for example, two people with > the same measure of astigmatism may have very different levels of visual > complaint. Why do I get the feeling that you're simply making up examples ... with no regard for their bases in fact? Why do I get the feeling that you're in a pre-aberrometry mindset, where previously thought "qualitative" differences can now be MUCH MORE readily "quantified?" But ... I'm not taking sides.... [snip] > Science can't explain or treat everything. For example, with cancer, to > use your example, why is it that some people respond to "scientific" > treatments and others do not? You don't think that frame of mind (I'm > feeling/getting better) has anything to do with it? Good doctors who > I've met treat the mind as well as the disease. How patients feel about > themselves, the disease, the prognosis is ALL a part of the treatment. When you talk about something akin to psychoneuroimmunology, that is where "holistic" inputs lead to OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE changes in the body. The trick is not to FEEL LIKE you've kicked cancer/gotten taller/changed your eye color, or ... whatever. The "trick" is to actually DO it (objectively verifiable). As a daily practice meditator and yoga guy ... I'm all over the mind- body connection ... but ... yoga and meditation are NOT making me taller, and I'm making NO SUCH claims. Others here are. > Neither medicine nor treatment is objective science. If it were, > everyone would be cured with exactly the same treatment plan. And new [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Your understanding of "science" is very limited. Thanks. I tend to disagree, but ... that's neither here nor there. You seem, in effect, to be asserting the argument of "irreducible complexity --" something to which I will likely NEVER subscribe. There ARE many vision-related issues as yet unanswered. That does NOT mean that they don't have "hard and fast" answers that will yet be teased out ... via the scientific method. > Perhaps you mean the "scientific method"? If that's the case, then you > should say so. I have ... on about a thousand occasions. I've even linked to its definition ... about a thousand times ... to help Otis learn to tie his shoes ... and other such rudimentary lessons. > Why do I get the feeling that you're simply making up examples ... > with no regard for their bases in fact? Why do I get the feeling that > you're in a pre-aberrometry mindset, where previously thought > "qualitative" differences can now be MUCH MORE readily "quantified?" Because you believe that quantified measurements always give you the definitive answer. Ask Dr. G about his experiences with post-LASIK patients and if all complaints are verifiable by objective measure, and even when they are, if they are treatable. > As a daily practice meditator and yoga guy ... > I'm all over the mind- > body connection .. I don't see any evidence from how or what you write on this NG that you have any understanding of "mind-body" connection or that you practice anything other than ugly hateful words delivered through anger. Anyone can go to yoga class and "meditate," that doesn't make you a practitioner. > but ... yoga and meditation are NOT making me > taller, and I'm making NO SUCH claims. Others here are. That's not how I read it. If you're talking about Zetsu, he either spewing crap that is totally meaningless that even he doesn't understand or have direct experience with or he's cutting and pasting from other people's texts. Do you engage him because it makes you feel smart? Signature~RT > In article <1191608034.162897.249...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > patients and if all complaints are verifiable by objective measure, and > even when they are, if they are treatable. I don't speak in terms of all-or-nothing. That would be what you just did. > > As a daily practice meditator and yoga guy ... > > I'm all over the mind- [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > can go to yoga class and "meditate," that doesn't make you a > practitioner. Ouch. Oh, well. Convincing you of .... well ... anything ... wasn't on today's "to-do" list anyway. > > but ... yoga and meditation are NOT making me > > taller, and I'm making NO SUCH claims. Others here are. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > or have direct experience with or he's cutting and pasting from other > people's texts. Do you engage him because it makes you feel smart? Wouldn't it be quicker and easier if you were simply to tell me? I'll wait right here. Thanks, Doc. >That's not how I read it. If you're talking about Zetsu, he either >spewing crap that is totally meaningless that even he doesn't understand >or have direct experience with or he's cutting and pasting from other As a matter of fact I am not doing either of these things. I never copy and paste from websites unless I add the reference at the end. And I am not spewing anything that I do not understand first myself, I have never ever ever done that. So you should not make up these lies about me! > Because you believe that quantified measurements always give you the > definitive answer. Ask Dr. G about his experiences with post-LASIK > patients and if all complaints are verifiable by objective measure, and > even when they are, if they are treatable. I believe that most complaints have an objective basis, and that most are treatable. I believe that the common yardsticks by which such things are measured are going to be replaced by better methods. We are better able to more precisely measure how the eye performs as an optical device, but the image is still modulated by the brain. So, in that sense, objective measurements do not always yield the total picture. But they do give important clues. > I believe that most complaints have an objective basis, and that most > are treatable. I believe that the common yardsticks by which such [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that sense, objective measurements do not always yield the total > picture. But they do give important clues. Sure, the brain processes the image it receives from the eye through the optic nerve, but can it process an image that it does NOT receive? For instance, if there is no clear image on the retina of the letter E on the chart, can the brain make a decision that it's an E, but not B, F, H etc without simply guessing by chance (i.e. sometimes guessing right, sometimes failing to identify the image). And if the eye does not register any image, can the brain produce it by processing information that it does not receive? I think the answer is clear. > Sure, the brain processes the image it receives from the eye through > the optic nerve, but can it process an image that it does NOT [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I think the answer is clear. Please don't try to read things into my answers that simply aren't there. Of course neural processing is absolutely dependent on the resolution of the retinal image. My point is that there is no set of objective measurements that accounts for every subject visual perception. >Sure, the brain processes the image it receives from the eye through >the optic nerve, but can it process an image that it does NOT >receive? Yes, that's described as an ILLUSION. For instance, if there is no clear image on the retina of >the letter E on the chart, can the brain make a decision that it's an >E, but not B, F, H etc without simply guessing by chance (i.e. >sometimes guessing right, sometimes failing to identify the image). Yes, that's called your IMAGINATION. >And if the eye does not register any image, can the brain produce it >by processing information that it does not receive? If the eye does not register an image, the brain cannot process nothing. But it is rare for an eye to have lost completely the perception of light. Bates once stated something along the lines of 'I cannot set any limits upon the healing powers of the vision except where the eye itself has been completely removed from its socket'. It is one of my favorite quotes! >I think the answer is clear. The answer is clear; but you are unable to see it. >Neil's can. Wasn't it Neil who says he can read street signs from >further away than anyone he knows even though the image is fuzzy Yeah he did. He keeps using that meaningless argument. >Of course neural processing is absolutely dependent on the resolution >of the retinal image. And then what do you make of MEMORY? > >Of course neural processing is absolutely dependent on the resolution > >of the retinal image. > > And then what do you make of MEMORY? Can you pass a vision test and get the pilot license with only memory, imagination, illusion etc.? > > Sure, the brain processes the image it receives from the eye through > > the optic nerve, but can it process an image that it does NOT [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > of the retinal image. My point is that there is no set of objective > measurements that accounts for every subject visual perception. I didn't read into your message what wasn't there. My comment was actually directed to those who claim the eye-mind connection can make up for image that is not on the retina, i.e. that the brain (or "mind", as they call it) can see without receiving the proper input from the eye thru the optic nerve. I agree with your comments. I disagree though with Zestu, Lena, RT et al. > I didn't read into your message what wasn't there. My comment was > actually directed to those who claim the eye-mind connection can make > up for image that is not on the retina, i.e. that the brain (or > "mind", as they call it) can see without receiving the proper input > from the eye thru the optic nerve. No, when the mind is at the normal state, the retinal image also becomes normal. But surely you are not challenging or denying the EXISTENCE of illusions? Perfect sight or imperfect, there are many illusions in vision. These illusions are all created by the mind. Look read this, it might interest you - "Illusions of Normal Sight By W. H. Bates, M.D. AN illusion is defined by the dictionary to be something which does not exist. Illusions are not seen, they are imagined. One cannot have perfect sight without illusions. CENTRAL FIXATION.-When the sight is normal one is always able to demonstrate that things regarded are seen best while those not regarded are always seen worse. With Central Fixation if one recognizes or sees a letter correctly, all other letters are seen worse. With the best vision that can be obtained it can be demonstrated that one cannot see a letter or any other object perfectly without seeing one part best. No matter how large or how small the letter or object may be, it is impossible to see it perfectly without Central Fixation. Many people believe that when they look at a small letter or a. small period that they see it all at once; but, when you notice the facts, one finds that to see or to try to see a letter, a number of letters all per-fectly, the vision becomes modified or imperfect. Some persons with unusually good vision can read the Snellen Test Card so rapidly that they have the impression that they see all the letters perfectly at the same time. It requires, in some cases, considerable trouble to demonstrate that this is impossible. In some obstinate cases it has required not only some hours but some days to prove that this is a fact. The letters of the Snellen Test Card are equally black. To see one blacker than the others, or a part of a letter blacker than the rest of it, is seeing something which is not so. The large letters and the small letters are printed in the same ink and all are equally black and although one cannot read the letters unless they see them by Central Fixation it is still, nevertheless, an illusion. One should emphasize the fact that it is possible to have illusions or that one cannot see perfectly unless the illusion of Central Fixation can be demonstrated. SWINGING.-When a small letter of the Snellen Test Card can be seen perfectly and continuously it can be demonstrated that the letter is moving from side to aide about its own width or less or that it is moving in other directions. To look fixedly at a letter and try to imagine one point of the letter is seen continuously, can be demonstrated to be impossible. One cannot obtain perfect sight by staring or trying to see things or imagine things as stationary. I have never seen this truth stated in any publication. It is just as important an illusion as is CENTRAL FIXATION in order to have perfect sight continuously. It can be demon-strated that all persons with imperfect sight stare, concentrate or try to see letters stationary. The illusion that the letter is moving, when the sight is normal, is brought about by the normal eye to avoid the stare and the strain of seeing things imperfectly. The point of fixation changes continuously, easily. When one looks to the right of the letter, the letter is to the left of where you are looking. If you look to the left of a letter the letter is to the right of where you are looking. Every time your eyes move to the right, the letter moves to the left. Every time your eyes move to the left the letter moves to the right and by alternately looking from one to the other side of a letter one becomes able to imagine the illusion that the letter is moving from side to side. When reading rapidly one does not have time to demonstrate that each individual letter is moving. Here again the imagination is respon- sible for the illusion of the swing. The letters do not really move, we only imagine it; and, unless we can imagine a letter moving continuously we are unable to see it with normal sight continuously. This is a truth; it has no exceptions. It is a necessary part of normal vision, and yet it has not, to my knowledge, been pub-lished in any book or periodical. People who write works on physiological optics have much to learn. So many of my patients who have been benefited by my methods have asked me: "Why didn't Helmholtz, Donders and all those other authorities publish the truths that you have discovered?" Nearly all ophthalmologists put glasses on people because that is all they know. I can recall the time when that was all I knew. If a patient left the office without a prescription for glasses it was not my fault. Now when persons with imperfect sight, wearing glasses, become able to practice CENTRAL FIXATION and the OPTICAL SWING in the right way, their vision becomes normal without glasses. HALOS.-When the sight is normal and when one regards a letter of the Snellen Card with a white center, the white part of the letter appears whiter than it really is and whiter than the rest of the card. I use the word Halos for this illusion. This is an illusion which can be demonstrated quite readily by covering over the black part of a letter with a screen with an opening slightly smaller than the white part of the letter, which permits the center of the letter to be observed. When this is done the white center of the letter is the same shade of whiteness as the rest of the card. Some people can imagine the illusion when it is described to them. When reading fine print the spaces between the lines appear whiter than the rest of the card, but only when the vision is good. As a general rule when one can imagine these white spaces between the lines are whiter than the rest of the card, Halos, the black appears more perfectly black and the letters can be read with normal vision. Halos are imagined, not seen. Imagination of the illusion of the Halos is a quick cure of myopia and astig-matism, as well as other cases of imperfect sight. I am annoyed with myself when I realize how many years it required before I had brains enough to notice the Halos. It seems to me that I must have been awfully stupid to have failed to have noticed them for such a long time. All persons who have normal sight are always able to demonstrate the Halos. All persons with imperfect sight are cured, temporarily or permanently, when they become able to imagine the Halos. BLINKING AND RESTING THE EYES.-By blinking is meant frequent closing of the eyes.. It is usually done so rapidly that it is not conspicuous. Many persons with normal sight have the illusion that they do not blink. They believe their eyes are always at rest and that their eyes are continually open all the time. When their attention is called to the facts it is usually readily demonstrated with persons with normal vision. In one case the patient was able to distinguish a small letter on the bottom line at twenty feet, 20/10. He was positive that he saw the letter, continuously. It was found by observing the movements of his eyes that he did two things. First: He closed and opened his eyes frequently, without being conscious of the fact. Sec- ondly: He looked some distance away from the letter and back again and did it so quickly that he was not aware that he did it. The facts can also be demonstrated, perhaps more accurately, with the,help of moving pictures. In all cases where the sight was normal, blinking occurred almost every second. In some seconds the eyes were opened and closed five times. Blinking occurs more frequently with the normal eye when the light is imperfect or when the conditions are unfavorable for perfect sight. When the light is good or the conditions most favorable for good sight, blinking occurs at less frequent intervals. Persons with imperfect sight do not rest their eyes as often as those with normal vision. When they are encouraged to blink more frequently their sight usually improves." >Can you pass a vision test and get the pilot license with only memory, >imagination, illusion etc.? Yes, if you are able to use these methods of rest with proficiency, that is by imagining or remembering something perfectly, and to cure your sight. >Neil actually said that he can read signs of streets which he is >familiar with. I experience the same. When you read the signs of streets perfectly, I mean with perfect sight (you see it very sharp, black, clear), you ARE SEEING them perfectly. There is no such thing as blur interpretation in the cure of imperfect sight; you either see or you don't see. >Neither Neil nor I (or anybody else) can >guess a name of a street which the eye >does not see and the person is not familiar with. Exactly, so you are not seeing perfectly. There is no such thing as seeing something unfamiliar, all things seen are familiar if they can be seen. This discussion is becoming quite interesting, I think. > When you read the signs of streets perfectly, I mean with perfect > sight (you see it very sharp, black, clear), you ARE SEEING them > perfectly. There is no such thing as blur interpretation in the cure > of imperfect sight; you either see or you don't see. You are speaking in tautologies. You are not adding anything. > >Neil actually said that he can read signs of streets which he is > >familiar with. I experience the same. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > perfectly. There is no such thing as blur interpretation in the cure > of imperfect sight; you either see or you don't see. Indeed, with perfect sight you SEE sharp, black and clear images. I agree, you either see or you don't see. With imagination you IMAGINE an image, but it's not the real object you are looking at. Furthermore, you cannot use memory to "see" an object you are not familiar with. When I drive on Oracle Road I need to turn right on Ina Road. Before I can clearly read "Ina" I know where I have to turn. Ina is not Orange Grove, River Road, Campbell, etc. I can see THAT. But if I did not know that there was an "Ina" Road, I would not be able to tell you the name of the road until I got closer. No imagination or memory could have revealed to me the name of that road from that distance. Ms.Brainy, > Indeed, with perfect sight you SEE sharp, black and clear images. I > agree, you either see or you don't see. With imagination you IMAGINE > an image, but it's not the real object you are looking at. Yes, an illusion. > Furthermore, you cannot use memory to "see" an object you are not > familiar with. Yes, you can remember a familiar object perfectly to see the unfamiliar object perfectly. I know what you are saying, but it is incorrect. > When I drive on Oracle Road I need to turn right on Ina Road. Before > I can clearly read "Ina" I know where I have to turn. Ina is not [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > imagination or memory could have revealed to me the name of that road > from that distance. Think of it this way Brainy. What is the word 'Ina' made up of - if not just infinitesimally small periods of black colour? That's all it is. So, if you can imagine a period perfectly, you can also see the sign perfectly. That isn't guesswork, that is seeing. You either see or don't see the sign; and you know it. >agree, you either see or you don't see. With imagination you IMAGINE >an image, but it's not the real object you are looking at. This is a thing that really interests me. The thing that I'm curious about, is what is the 'real object' we are looking at? I don't think anyone knows, because no one can transfer them self into the mind and eyes of another person, and no one can see what they are perceiving. So I mean, what if everyone sees differently, but in RELATION everything seems the same, and that's why we can describe 'pink' as 'pink' when we look at it; that is by comparison to another colour. I wonder, what is vision and perception if not merely for comparisons to another perception? Do you understand what I'm trying to say? Have you ever wondered like that? I'd like to state here that, illusions play one of the highest roles in the cure of imperfect sight. I think their use and power in treatment of imperfect sight; is yet pretty much untouched by visual scientists. I think that is one of the primary flaws in visual science. Yet illusions are not taken seriously; mocked by the people who are unable to appreciate their value in sight, like some of the people in this discussion. If we demonstrate these illusions, it is a great help in the understanding of the mechanism by which the mind operates. I believe they hold a big key to the next generation of advancements in ophthalmolgical treatments. There is so much we have yet to learn; and yet so many unwilling to learn... it is sickening. > ophthalmolgical treatments. There is so much we have yet to learn; and > yet so many unwilling to learn... it is sickening. That's magical thinking for you. When you believe in magic, science seems ridiculous. Unfortunately, most colleges don't teach magic. If you make it to college, you either unlearn the magic or you fail. -MT >> ophthalmolgical treatments. There is so much we have yet to learn; and >> yet so many unwilling to learn... it is sickening. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > If you make it to college, you either unlearn the magic or you fail. Unless it's Hogwart's of course. SignatureNicolaas. ... Losing your temper doesn't get rid of it. > That's magical thinking for you. When you believe in magic, science seems > ridiculous. You know, Einstein made up the theory of relativity when he was sitting around and just imagining things; 'magical thinking' as you call it. But look where science has been taken, because of the imaginations of humans. If we didn't have 'magical thinking' no one would be able to make the big advancements that have been made in history. Imagination is more important than knowledge. > Unfortunately, most colleges don't teach magic. Who cares what colleges think; how many people has college lead you to CURE? Zero. All you can do is fit people with some crap lenses and they come back later with more and more complaints, you didn't learn to fix anything. > If you make it to college, you either unlearn the magic or you fail. Then I will fail; no matter. > >agree, you either see or you don't see. With imagination you IMAGINE > >an image, but it's not the real object you are looking at. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > another perception? Do you understand what I'm trying to say? Have you > ever wondered like that? The answer to that is that we can all describe the same thing, such as the characters on a letter chart. What's the confusion? > And if the eye does not register any image, can the brain produce it > by processing information that it does not receive? Neil's can. Wasn't it Neil who says he can read street signs from further away than anyone he knows even though the image is fuzzy and he can't really read them. (Since he doesn't archive his messages on Google, I can't verify this although I tried a search.) > I think the answer is clear. Well, that's because you're the brain. Ask an eye and you might get a different answer. Signature~RT > In article <1191614724.342304.107...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > further away than anyone he knows even though the image is fuzzy and he > can't really read them. Neil actually said that he can read signs of streets which he is familiar with. I experience the same. Neither Neil nor I (or anybody else) can guess a name of a street which the eye does not see and the person is not familiar with. > Neil actually said that he can read signs of streets which he is > familiar with. I experience the same. No, actually I think Neil was talking about finding a street that he had never been to. I'm pretty sure that Neil was boasting about exactly what you are saying no one can do. Of course it would be great if someone had a copy of that posting or Neil could remind us of what he said. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But that's my memory of that thread. BTW, even though I am disagreeing with you about our memories of what Neil wrote, no where have I indicated that I agree or disagree with: > Neither Neil nor I (or anybody > else) can guess a name of a street which the eye does not see and the > person is not familiar with. I haven't provided an opinion on this or anything else about what you call "mind-eye." And although you group me with Lena, Zetsu, et al, no where have I agreed with anything they (or Otis or Andrew) post. It's just that I'm not on your side, so I must be on theirs, right? What if there were more than two sides? True horror if the world becomes defined by Bush--""if you're not with us, then you're against us" mentality. Eek. Signature~RT > In article <1191616997.759777.59...@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > a copy of that posting or Neil could remind us of what he said. If I'm > wrong, I'm wrong. But that's my memory of that thread. You're wrong. I said that ... if I'm looking FOR, say, Walnut St., then I can usually GUESS when Walnut St. appears on the sign BEFORE my emmetropic friends can SEE it (without knowing what street I'm looking for). > I said that ... if I'm looking FOR, say, Walnut St., then I can > usually GUESS when Walnut St. appears on the sign BEFORE my emmetropic > friends can SEE it (without knowing what street I'm looking for). I am wondering Neil... You are far sighted, so shouldn't it be obvious that you would SEE (not only guess) far images/objects BEFORE your friends, who are NOT farsighted, could? > I am wondering Neil... You are far sighted, so shouldn't it be obvious > that you would SEE (not only guess) far images/objects BEFORE your > friends, who are NOT farsighted, could? Nah. At best, a person with simple, and LOW, hyperopia may see 20/20 (or so) at optical infinity, but ... a) They always accommodate more than emmetropes, and b) An emmetrope, by definition, ALSO sees 20/20 at a distance More 'clinically,' Emmetropia: The condition of the normal eye when parallel rays are focused exactly on the retina and vision is perfect. Hyperopia: An abnormal condition of the eye in which vision is better for distant objects than for near objects. It results from the eyeball being too short from front to back, causing images to be focused behind the retina. So ... there's not much reason that a low hyperope would/should see BETTER at a distance than an emmetrope. It's just a neat parlor game I enjoy ;-) > > I said that ... if I'm looking FOR, say, Walnut St., then I can > > usually GUESS when Walnut St. appears on the sign BEFORE my emmetropic [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that you would SEE (not only guess) far images/objects BEFORE your > friends, who are NOT farsighted, could? Mr Brainy, I thought that too. But it is no > I said that ... if I'm looking FOR, say, Walnut St., then I can > usually GUESS when Walnut St. appears on the sign BEFORE my emmetropic > friends can SEE it (without knowing what street I'm looking for). Well in that case, your original post had nothing to do with vision or science and doesn't belong on this NG (by your definitions--and "clearly" stated by the brain). It's probable that you can see when others don't because your eyes are in a relaxed state and you are experiencing perfect vision :-) Must be from all the love you practice on this NG. Signature~RT Dear RT, Subject: Neil is living is a never-never world. RT> Neil's can. Wasn't it Neil who says he can read street signs from further away than anyone he knows even though the image is fuzzy and he can't really read them. Otis> Yes, correcto-mundo. Neil also claims (with no medical training) that he invented and adjustable suture (used in highly complex strabismus surgery.) RT> (Since he doesn't archive his messages on Google, I can't verify this although I tried a search.) Otis> Correct again. He tells many lies about his "brilliance". We asked him to provded his published record in medical journals. Yes, Brooks has little connection with scientific reality. Second-opinion best, Otis > In article <1191614724.342304.107...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > -- > ~RT On Oct 5, 8:10 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear RT, > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Otis, I am going to "stick-up" for Neil. My impression is that Neil is a very bright guy who has had a lifetime of severe eye problems. As a result of those severe problems, he has had a lifelong relationship with medical doctors and optometrists. I think he genuinely respects them and is grateful for their help. With that in mind, he probably views your little "crusade" as akin to tilting at windmills. Because he has strabismus, he is also acutely aware of the ability of plus lenses to cause nearpoint exophoria, if improperly used, and wouldn't want to wish that on anybody, either. By the way, Neil is farsighted. He might view a little myopia as far more preferable. I think Neil might regard your antagonism of the eye professions as being somewhat malignant. Dear "L", Subject: Two errors on your part. 1. I am highly supportive of PREVENTION MINDED doctors. Since you hate the concept, I can only call your idea the "majority-opinion". 2. Neil Brooks CLAIMS to have invented an adjustable suture. That claim is false -- and I suspect a number of further statements are in that category. I do not consider plus-PREVENTION to be easy. But I do believe it is possible. But that choice will indeed depend on BOTH the parents and the "guidance" of a second-opinion optometrist to assist with that process. See: www.chinamyopia.org To confirm that judgment. Second-opinion best, Otis > On Oct 5, 8:10 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > > - Show quoted text - On Oct 5, 8:36 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear "L", > > Subject: Two errors on your part. IF that WERE true, he couldn't hold a candle to you. > 2. Neil Brooks CLAIMS to have invented an > adjustable suture. That claim is false -- and I suspect > a number of further statements are in that category. David Granet, MD 858-534-2020 Why don't you call him, you absolute f.cking idiot and pathological liar. Calling ME a liar is more of a dishonor than a piece of sh.t could ever imagine. I will CONTINUE to provide Granet's name and phone number so that anybody who ever cares enough to pick up a phone and make a call can verify, with CERTAINTY, that you are a pathological liar and an absolute f.cking idiot. > David Granet, MD > 858-534-2020 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > make a call can verify, with CERTAINTY, that you are a pathological > liar and an absolute f.cking idiot. Do you think David Granet and his ophthalmology practice like having his name and phone number associated with this kind of foul language? How do you think Dr. Granet feels when he does a google search of his name and phone number and these posts pop up? Signature~RT > Do you think David Granet and his ophthalmology practice like having his > name and phone number associated with this kind of foul language? > > How do you think Dr. Granet feels when he does a google search of his > name and phone number and these posts pop up? I dunno, Doc. How's about you tell me. Thanks. > I dunno, Doc. How's about you tell me. The irony here is, of course, I am a Dr. so thank you for addressing me by my title. I don't know Dr. Granet, never spoken to him, don't really know anything about him. But you seem to hold him in very high regard, so it is puzzling to me that you would list David Granet (858-534-2020) in the same post with such profanities. Isn't David Granet (858-534-2020) a pediatric ophthalmologist who has published some very impressive studies? Perhaps you wish him ill also, because using profanities is not a good image for a professional who works with children. If you google "David Granet" or "David Granet (858-534-2020)," or "David Granet sutures," links to your posts full of profanities come up on the first page. Perhaps he endorses your kind of language, who knows. Perhaps his waiting room is full of people swearing and calling each other f.cking idiots, wishing them ill as you do on this newsgroup in the same posts in which you list his name and phone number. > Why continue to prattle on about something AS IF it were a > hypothetical. There is nothing hypothetical about the fact you are not doing him any favors. Guilt by association runs strong when "f.cking idiot" pops up on the first page of doing a google search on David Granet (858-534-2020). I'm sorry that you "dunno" that. Or don't seem to care. My questions were rhetorical. > You call him. That's ridiculous. I'm not going to call him. It's not my problem and I don't care what he thinks. I was writing to you. As long as you are telling me what to do, you go "meditate" on whether or not you are doing Dr. Granet any favors by associating pediatric ophthalmologist David Granet (858-534-2020) with profane language on a newsgroup that is archived on servers all over the world. Signature~RT > As long as you are telling me what to do, you go "meditate" on whether > or not you are doing Dr. Granet any favors by associating pediatric > ophthalmologist David Granet (858-534-2020) with profane language on a > newsgroup that is archived on servers all over the world. Nah, Doc. No point in meditating over a readily determinable issue of fact. This IS supposed to be a science-based newsgroup. You won't make the call. Otis won't make the call. Neither of you is interested in facts. You seem partial to advancing your respective agendas. Save ME your proselytizing, though, huh? Thanks. > > As long as you are telling me what to do, you go "meditate" on whether > > or not you are doing Dr. Granet any favors by associating pediatric [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Nah, Doc. No point in meditating over a readily determinable issue of > fact. ah Mr., this answer demonstrates why you are not a yoga practitioner. You are deluding yourself if you think this discussion has something to do with "determinable fact" and not your behavior. You appear to be truly afraid of introspection. > This IS supposed to be a science-based newsgroup. So why are you posting about street signs you "guess" you can see? Why are you even bothering to respond to my "unscientific" posts? How is calling someone a f.cking idiot related to science? Why do you participate in non-scientific discussions? Aren't you just adding to the un-scientific-ness of this NG? You dunno? > You won't make the call. Otis won't make the call. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Thanks. You still don't get that this is about YOU, not Dr. Granet. I have no "agenda." What am I proselytizing? You need to spend some time in self-reflection. Until you do that, please don't respond. Thanks. Signature~RT > In article <1191689151.528081.161...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > You need to spend some time in self-reflection. > Until you do that, please don't respond. Wow. Thanks. Will you be able to bill my insurer directly for all of this? Dear Foul-mouthed Mr. Brooks, That's ridiculous. I'm not going to call him. It's not my problem and I don't care what he thinks. I was writing to you. As long as you are telling me what to do, you go "meditate" on whether or not you are doing Dr. Granet any favors by associating pediatric ophthalmologist David Granet (858-534-2020) with YOUR profane language on a newsgroup that is archived on servers all over the world. Otis > > In article <1191689151.528081.161...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > - Show quoted text - On Oct 6, 1:37 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Foul-mouthed Mr. Brooks, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Otis Out of (more) idle curiosity, RT ... why don't you turn your psychoanalytical lens toward this particular Otis post ... just for our collective amusement. TIA, Neil > On Oct 6, 1:37 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > > Otis Out of (more) idle curiosity, RT ... why don't you turn your psychoanalytical lens toward this particular Otis post ... just for our collective amusement. TIA, Neil > > You need to spend some time in self-reflection. > > Until you do that, please don't respond. > Wow. Thanks. Just can't help yourself, can you? Try really hard not to respond to me. > Will you be able to bill my insurer directly for all of this? Just send me your full name, address, date of birth and social social security number and I'd be glad to bill anyone you want. Signature~RT > Just can't help yourself, can you? > Try really hard not to respond to me. I'm terribly sorry if you're unsuccessful in your efforts to control my actions. I could see where that would be quite frustrating to you. Now then.... Otis? Rather than continuing to call me a liar ... wouldn't you rather VERIFY the story with a quick call to Dave Granet @ 858-534-2020? I'm sure he'd love to hear from you. Thanks. > > Just can't help yourself, can you? > > Try really hard not to respond to me. > > I'm terribly sorry if you're unsuccessful in your efforts to control > my actions. I could see where that would be quite frustrating to you. Of course you could see that not controlling someone would be quite frustrating. Clearly not being able to control people (Otis) is extremely frustrating to YOU which is why you would even think that my exchanges with you are somehow about me trying to control your actions. They're not. Unless I'm responding to a poster with eye-related questions or my personal experiences, I only write to people on this NG (like you, Brainy, Andrew, and Lena) who I'm fairly certain will respond in a certain way, even when I end a message saying don't bother to respond. In that respect, I find you highly satisfying. Not frustrating at all. Thanks. Signature~RT Out of an idle sense of curiosity, RT: Uncle Otie is flat-out wrong (and, therefore, flat-out lying) about my being credited with the delayed adjustable suture technique -- a fact that's readily established with a single phone call. Uncle Otie DOES constantly put words in the mouths of others. After 15 or 20 times, it's clearly a dishonest tactic that's, at its core, the straw man fallacy taken to its extreme. Uncle Otie (like his new acolytes) is factually wrong so frequently as to boggle the mind. He uses statistics as veiled lies, and preys upon the unsuspecting, often to their medical detriment. He uses fear tactics -- much like a cult leader -- to try to lure people into his lair ... where he offers them nothing, save risk and lies. The dozen (+/-) that he HAS hurt were ALL children (under the age of 18). ... Now ... by way of comparison: Dave Granet is mid-40's, extremely accomplished, educated, intelligent, and successful. I feel pretty okay in my own space for defending unsuspecting children against the lunatic rantings of the pathologically dishonest idiot, Uncle Otie. Please help me/us understand YOUR perceived need to defend Dave Granet against what you presume to be affronts and acts with injurious potential to his firmly-established reputation? While others may say that the CHILDREN need no defense ... history shows that's NOT the case. What they don't know (Otis) WILL hurt them. Dr. Granet, on the other hand, would likely chuckle at YOUR efforts to defend his honor ;-) Let me know your thoughts here. I'll be seeing Doc Granet for a check- up very soon. I'd be interested in running all of this by him at that point. Perhaps I'll be totally wrong ... and he'll send you some fillet mignon for your efforts. But I doubt it. Thanks, as always.... Also .... On Oct 6, 2:35 pm, RT <RTM...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote: > Of course you could see that not controlling someone would be quite > frustrating. Clearly not being able |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message