 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / January 2008sight recovered by the new ophthalmology
http://www.iblindness.org/community/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=793 How did this happen? > http://www.iblindness.org/community/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=793 > > How did this happen? How did this happen? > http://www.iblindness.org/community/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=793 > > How did this happen? It is always good to read a statement by a man who cleared his Snellen using the Bates methods. Here is John Bershak discussing these issues. http://www.i-see.org/bershak.html Why did this happen? On Jan 22, 6:22 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > >http://www.iblindness.org/community/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=793 > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Why did this happen? Extraneous factors?? You DO know -- don't you, Otis -- that in the USAF studies, - Some myopes got more myopic over time; - Some got LESS myopic over time; - Some stayed the same. You DO know that, don't you, Otis?? On Jan 22, 9:22 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Why did this happen? Many potential reasons, all legitimate. But why does it matter? Tell me, do you hold to a conspiracy theory where the "truth" is withheld from the public by a consortium of evil doctor and industry groups who really run things? I do not hold a conspiracy theory, dear. I only believe that there is ignorance and that there is arrogance, but no conspiracy. > I do not hold a conspiracy theory, dear. I only believe that there is > ignorance and that there is arrogance, but no conspiracy. Then a randomized, controlled, multicenter clinical trial should prove that whatever it is you propose .... actually works better than doing nothing. Or is the mere CONCEPT of the RCCT ... or science ... in question, too? And ... if so ... then how are you able to use the Internet? Arrogance and ignorance is your problem not mine. If you want some real sciences then read the magazines of Bates. There is plenty randomized, controlled, whatnot all in there. > Arrogance and ignorance is your problem not mine. > If you want some real sciences then read the magazines of Bates. > There is plenty randomized, controlled, whatnot all in there. I take it, then, that you're saying "No" to actual evidence of efficacy. Okay. Got ya'. > Arrogance and ignorance is your problem not mine. > If you want some real sciences then read the magazines of Bates. > There is plenty randomized, controlled, whatnot all in there. You'll find Bates Magazines in the comic book section. > Arrogance and ignorance is your problem not mine. > If you want some real sciences then read the magazines of Bates. > There is plenty randomized, controlled, whatnot all in there. arrogant of what? about knowing the truth? I know the studies and none of them demonstrate what you claim. Ignorant of what? the facts? I know what the controlled studies show, not what individual success stories claim or what a particular person's pet theories are. You and your moronic friend need to leave this newsgroup. I would rather be spammed by the MI5 guy than start another round of this Bates bullcrap again. Please, read the magazine! You will see so much where you have gone wrong! Even if you don't read it to learn something about something, then read it just for the funny and comical stories! You will enjoy it and in the meantime you will learn something about eyesight. You can buy it on amazon for 20 dollars! And the book is huge! Did you notice, looking back, how beautifully this newsgroup "functioned" while the two of you were locked up? No actually I didn't notice that. The group seems to function the same all the time... YAWN YAWN > No actually I didn't notice that. > The group seems to function the same all the time... YAWN YAWN Then I see how you can be so readily swayed to wrong conclusions: you lack the capacity of objectivity in looking at facts. > http://www.iblindness.org/community/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=793 > > How did this happen? Oh, from the link: "I dreamed of being able to see the big C at the top and considered the ultimate success having eyesight at 20/200". It's the Big E that's at the top of the Snellen charts. Details. Don W. > http://www.iblindness.org/community/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=793 > > How did this happen? The fellow asked his doctor to reduce his minus prescription by about 1.50 and he can't quite see 20/40 with the reduced prescription. No surprises there, its about what you would expect. Dr Judy > >http://www.iblindness.org/community/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=793 > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Dr Judy You DID have a distinct advantage in having read the article ;-) >It's the Big E that's at the top of the Snellen charts. No, the one you get with Bates' book has a snellen chart with C at the top. Dear Zetsu, There is no "standard" Snellen letters. But in general, the big "E" is the 20/200 line. Thus it is 10 times as large as the 20/20 line, which is 0.9 cm. Thus check the size of the letter. If 9 cm, then that is the 20/200 line. It would be better to refer to the size of the letters read at 20 feet to avoid this difficulty. Best, Otis > >It's the Big E that's at the top of the Snellen charts. > > No, the one you get with Bates' book has a snellen chart with C at the > top. Otis, From Bennett and Rabbett's "Clinical Visual Optics", 3rd ed. "The Snellen letters ranked in increasing difficulty: L A J E N H X P F Z U T D Y V K C B O R S N thru D is the selection recommended. (Quoted results of one study, there are others, of course, but "C" is low on the legibility list. Conflicts with "G"). Don W. On Jan 23, 1:06 pm, Zetsu <Kyazek...@googlemail.com> wrote: Dear Zetsu, There is no "standard" Snellen letters. But in general, the big "E" is the 20/200 line. Thus it is 10 times as large as the 20/20 line, which is 0.9 cm. Thus check the size of the letter. If 9 cm, then that is the 20/200 line. It would be better to refer to the size of the letters read at 20 feet to avoid this difficulty. Best, Otis > >It's the Big E that's at the top of the Snellen charts. > > No, the one you get with Bates' book has a snellen chart with C at the > top. |
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
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.