Medical Forum / General / Vision / October 2007
A professional argues for plus "stress relief"
|
|
Thread rating:  |
otisbrown@pa.net - 02 Oct 2007 17:42 GMT Dear Second-opinion friends,
Here an optometrist, Dr. Robert Hohendorf describes why intelligent use of the plus is needed to clear your refractive STATE back to normal.
As one person is now doing it on sci.med.vision.
I always like to hear the second-opinion -- and make my preventive judgment accordingly.
Enjoy,
Otis
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Baltimore Academy for Behavioral Optometry (BABO) News
-------------------------------------------------
Volume I, Issue 2 April 1997
-------------------------------------------------
A Clinical Analogy for Close Working Distances:
Stress and Stress Relief
Robert Hohendorf, O.D., F.C.O.V.D.
Stress demands change. I feel it can occur any one of three ways. Here is a sample way of explaining a habitual working distance inside the Harmon distance, its impact on vision, and treatment options.
"Suppose I put a 25 lb. (11 kg) sack of flour on your back behind your shoulders. Would you walk bent over or normal?"
You are looking for the answer "bent over". If they say, "normal" then continue to increase the amount of the weight until they say, "bent over".
"What if I left it on your back for the next six hours and then took it off. Wouldn't it feel good to straighten up and stretch? That's easily reversible change! Now suppose I left that sack of flour on your back for six months. When I took it off would you straighten right up?"
You are looking for the answer "no". If you need to, keep making the time with the flour on the back longer and longer until they say, "no".
"You would probably have to exercise and stretch to regain your posture. Maybe even sleep on a board for a few nights. This is an example of change with effort! Suppose we left that weight on your back for six years?"
For child: "How much taller will you be in six year? Do you think you will grow crooked or straight with that weight on your back?
"All the bones and all the muscles will be crooked supporting that extra weight. This is the third kind of change which is not easily reversible! (even with surgery) You have grown crooked and you have altered the way you do everything because of a weight on your back."
"The weight is a strain on your back. Holding things close to your eyes is a strain on your visual system. Right now you are in that easily reversible (or reversible with effort) visual stage. Here are some things you can do to change your habit of holding things too close to your eyes."
Visual hygiene, plus lenses, and/or VT can be discussed here as options.
"Suppose I was a back doctor and you came in complaining of a back ache and you had that sack of flour on your back. If I was a good doctor, what would I do?"
Looking for "take that sack off my back" as an answer.
"That's what these glasses for reading, desk work, and computers do for your eyes. They take the strain off, so your eyes grow up straight and strong. You can still get all your work done, probably even better, without your visual symptoms. These are (use one of the following:) stress relieving, preventive, protective lenses.
Scott Seidman - 02 Oct 2007 17:50 GMT > Here an optometrist, Dr. Robert Hohendorf describes > why intelligent use of the plus is needed > to clear your refractive STATE back to normal. No, he speaks to taking your glasses off and using plus lenses, but he never says this will prevent myopia.
 Signature Scott Reverse name to reply
otisbrown@pa.net - 03 Oct 2007 15:17 GMT Dear Scott,
Yes, indeed. He intimated that plus-prevention would be a good idea.
It takes some WISDOM in the person to put logical facts together, like adding 1 + 1, and consistently getting "2" for the answer.
Scientifically best,
Otis
> "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote innews:1191343367.410925.272280@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Scott > Reverse name to reply Scott Seidman - 03 Oct 2007 16:14 GMT > It takes some WISDOM in the person to put logical > facts together, like adding 1 + 1, and consistently > getting "2" for the answer. So, checking out http://lc.brooklyn.cuny.edu/smarttutor/logic/rules.html, I suppose one could infer that "good for the eyes"== "prevents myopia"???
 Signature Scott Reverse name to reply
Neil Brooks - 03 Oct 2007 20:06 GMT On Oct 3, 7:17 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
> Yes, indeed. Yes, indeed. As always, you're a pathological liar and an absolute f.cking idiot.
Sounds like another Dave Guyton case: he makes recommendations consistent with MINE, but in NO WAY supporting your position, yet ... you say he agrees with you.
Yes, indeed: a pathological liar and a f.cking idiot.
How's that call to Dave Granet coming, anyway, you f.cking idiot?
p.clarkii@gmail.com - 05 Oct 2007 11:57 GMT On Oct 2, 12:42 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
> Baltimore Academy for Behavioral Optometry (BABO) News Wow! another impressive highly-acclaimed academic institution. you sure must have a lot of credibility since you read all of this high- level scientific information, right Otis? I wonder why I have an OD and PhD in vision research and I haven't heard of these so-called institutes you keep writing about? I bet their street address is some schmuck's home.
these people are a bunch of snake-oil selling idiots Otis. BTW, how is the sale of your book coming along?
BTW, what is the status of your legal complaint from the State of Pennsylvania for practicing medicine without a license coming?
you are such an idiot Otis. why do you expect anyone believes or cares about what you have to say? have you noticed that no one replies to your posts except for the hecklers?
pathetic
otisbrown@pa.net - 05 Oct 2007 16:10 GMT PClar> BTW, what is the status of your legal complaint from the State of Pennsylvania for practicing medicine without a license coming?
Otis> As you know, Layman Brooks filed the "complain" on-line.
Otis> I sent them a lot of his foul-mouth remarks, and they concluded he was a first-rate jerk -- and that was the end of that.
Otis> But further, I explained that I was an ENGINEER, and ONLY advocated that the person search-out a SUPPORTIVE second-opinion optometrist -- and get the PREVENTIVE help he truly need.
Otis> I just stated that there was an HONEST professional disagreement, and that the second-opinion OD judged that a negative refractive STATE of the natural eye could be PREVENTED under excellent circumstance. I referred them to this site to prove that point:
www.chinamyopia.org
Otis
On Oct 5, 6:57 am, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 2, 12:42 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > pathetic Neil Brooks - 05 Oct 2007 18:06 GMT On Oct 5, 8:10 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
> PClar> BTW, what is the status of your legal complaint from the State > of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > concluded he was a first-rate jerk -- and that was the end > of that. Gosh, Scrotis. That's not what they told me. They simply need a small handful of people willing to swear out a complaint against you.
The people whose children you DID hurt felt HORRIBLY that they EVER listened to you in the first place and felt strongly that they wanted to put it all behind them.
As I say, you will UNDOUBTEDLY cause MORE HARM ... and I'll be right there when you do :-)
Then ... the State of Pennsylvania will, too.
As I've oft said: I may have a foul mouth, but you're a pathological liar, an absolute f.cking idiot, AND you hurt people with reckless disregard.
I'll be on the beach in Maui while you're ignorant carcass is rotting in hell :-p
By the way, Otis. Have you called Dave Granet (858-534-2020) about the delayed adjustable sutures question yet?
I know you're virtually brain dead, so I'll keep reminding you ... just so that you can stay a little closer to the truth ... as we all know you MUST want ... right?
Neil Brooks - 05 Oct 2007 18:02 GMT On Oct 5, 3:57 am, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote:
> you are such an idiot Otis. Fair. Accurate. Probably even UNDERstates the case.
> why do you expect anyone believes or > cares about what you have to say? have you noticed that no one > replies to your posts except for the hecklers? Not entirely true, at all. Like Atchoo, Otis CONSTANTLY replies to HIS OWN posts.
I presume, though, that this is not really what you meant.
> pathetic Fair. Accurate. Probably even UNDERstates the case.
Good precis.
|
|
|