Medical Forum / General / Vision / April 2008
Why the word "cure" should not be used.
|
|
Thread rating:  |
otisbrown@embarqmail.com - 04 Apr 2008 20:32 GMT Dear Second-opinion friends,
Subject: The word "cure" makes for a very bad and false idea.
My appreciation of Bates was in his FIRST steps of prevention -- i.e., was tp INSIST that the kids be cognizant of their Snellen.
And further, the EMPOWERMENT of the kids to take the actions that are necessary for THEM to confirm their own clearing.
I do not support the notion that this clearing a Snellen is EVER a "cure".
It is essential that this work be under the complete control of the person doing it.
If you use the work "cure" then you bring the entire medical world into the discussion with the implication that MEDICINE must "cure" a negative refractive STATE for the natural eye.
How you "parse" these words is up to you.
But a great deal of science depends on using simple and EXACT terms.
Here is Bates discussion about his his SECOND OPINION, clashed with the majority opinion of his day.
If the person himself had made these critical measurements himself -- has seen the results -- and kept on doing it -- then this "contest" of wills would end.
==============
Dr. W. H. Bates
Successful prevention rejected -- by people who do not like the idea of it.
Chapter 32
Why it is very important that you take control and do it yourself.
==================
By Dr. Bates:
Patients whom I have cured of various errors of refraction have frequently returned to specialists who had prescribed glasses for them, and, by reading fine print and the Snellen test card with normal vision, have demonstrated the fact that they were cured, without in any way shaking the faith of these practitioners in the doctrine that such cures are impossible.
The patient with progressive myopia whose case was mentioned in Chapter XV returned after her cure to the specialist who had prescribed her glasses, and who had said not only that there was no hope of improvement, but that the condition would probably progress until it ended in blindness, to tell him the good news which, as an old friend of her family, she felt he had a right to hear. But while he was unable to deny that her vision was, in fact, normal without glasses, he said it was impossible that she should have been cured of myopia, because myopia was incurable. How he reconciled this statement with his former patient's condition he was unable to make clear to her.
A lady with compound myopic astigmatism suffered from almost constant headaches which were very much worse when she took her glasses off, The theatre and the movies caused her so much discomfort that she feared to indulge in these recreations. She was told to take off her glasses and advised, among other things, to go to the movies; to look first at the corner of the screen, then off to the dark, then back to the screen a little nearer to the center, and so forth.
She did so, and soon became able to look directly at the pictures without discomfort. After that nothing troubled her. One day she called on her former ophthalmological adviser, in the company of a friend who wanted to have her glasses changed, and told him of her cure. The facts seemed to make no impression on him whatever. He only laughed and said, "I guess Dr. Bates is more popular with you than I am."
Sometimes patients themselves, after they are cured, allow themselves to be convinced that it was impossible that such a thing could have happened, and go back to their glasses. This happened in the case of a patient already mentioned in the chapter on Presbyopia, who was cured in fifteen minutes by the aid of his imagination. He was very grateful for a time, and then he began to talk to eye specialists whom he knew and straightway grew skeptical as to the value of what I had done for him.
One day I met him at the home of a mutual friend, and in the presence of a number of other people he accused me of having hypnotized him, adding that to hypnotize a patient without his knowledge or consent was to do him a grievous wrong.
Some of the listeners protested that whether I had hypnotized him or not, I had not only done him no harm but had greatly benefited him, and he ought to forgive me. He was unable, however, to take this view of the matter.
Later he called on a prominent eye specialist who told him that the presbyopia and astigmatism from which he had suffered were incurable, and that if he persisted in going without. his glasses he might do himself great harm. The fact that his sight was perfect for the distance and the near-point without glasses had no effect upon the specialist, and the patient allowed himself to be frightened into disregarding it also.
He went back to his glasses, and so far as I know has been wearing them ever since. The story obtained wide publicity, for the man had a large circle of friends and acquaintances; and if I had destroyed his sight I could scarcely have suffered more than I did for curing him.
================
By this metod of "authority figure" and NOT BY SCIENCE OR FACTS -- this situation is perpetuated.
It is no one's fault -- but it is necessary to understand why you must take control and clear your Snellen youself.
Otis
Neil Brooks - 04 Apr 2008 21:12 GMT Any evidence that the difference between those who try Bates' methods and those who do not is statistically significant ... with those who try Bates' methods actually /improving/ their vision?
No?
Interesting.
If you have all this insight into vision improvement, then why are you still a 6d myope?
That really does leave one wondering, no?
otisbrown@embarqmail.com - 04 Apr 2008 21:25 GMT Subject: OBJECTION to the minus -- is the second-opinion.
In fact there are a number of medical people who have "objected" to the over-prescribed minus.
But a PREVENTIVE solution (like Bates) requires that the person START with the preventive method BEFORE ANY MINUS IS APPLIED.
Here is Dr. Prentice's discussion about the difficulties of plus- prevention.
Again, this is NEVER a "cure" -- but a way of avoiding entry into a negative refractive STATE for the fundamental eye.
Second-opinion best,
=================================
By Chalmer Prentice, M.D.
Transcription (c) A. Wik, 2004
----------+ | Chapter IX | +--------
The following are some very interesting experiments in myopia which can be verified by any operator, and which prove that refractive myopia depends on ciliary spasm, and that, even in axial myopia, considerable repression can sometimes be made at the near point. In either class of cases, repression must be made at the near point. In various lengths of time, we shall be able to reduce the myopia one or two dioptres, sometimes more.
In most cases satisfactory results will require considerable time and patience; but a few experiments after the following example will suffice to show that in some very advanced stages of myopia, it is possible to suppress, or at least check, its onward course by repression at the near point.
***** This fact renders the fitting of minus glasses to myopic eyes an open question. ******
EXAMPLE CASES
Age forty-three; myopia; had been wearing over the right eye -1.25 D, left eye -1 D, with little or no change for the space of two years; eyes in use more or less at the near point. I recommended the removal of the concave glasses for distant vision and prescribed +3.50 D for reading, writing and other office work.
After reading in these glasses for several days, the patient was able to read print twelve inches from the eyes. This patient was of more than ordinary intelligence and understood the aim of the effort. In six months I changed the glasses for reading and writing to a +4 D without seeing the patient. After using the +4 D glasses for several months he again came under my care for an examination, when the left eye gave twenty-twentieths of vision, while the right eye was very nearly the same, but the acuity was just perceptibly less.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Similar results have been attained in 34 like cases;
...but the process is very tedious for the patients, and unless their understanding is clear on the subject, it is almost impossible to induce them to undergo the trial.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[Comment: Anyone considering "prevention" must understand this issue. There is no "easy way" of prevention. As Chalmers said -- the person must fully understand this issue. It is for this reason that I suggest full transfer of "control" to the person himself. If he lacks the motivation to look at the chart, and "clear" himself, then no "third party" (i.e., OD) can do it for the person. This is why I separate a true-medical problem from preventing a negative refractive status in the natural eye. I believe that the above staement simply clarifies that point. OSB]
[Comment: We also have the "Neil Brooks" effect which must be understood. (Read sci.med.vision to understand this effect on an OD.) A few people will SUE ANY OD WHO EVEN MENTIONS PREVENTION-WITH-PLUS. For that reason, no majority-opinion OD will EVER help you with true-prevention -- and I don't blame them. I would not put myself at risk either -- nor do I expect any majority-opinion to put himself at professional risk either. But that is why you NEVER hear about the preventive effect of a plus -- if used correctly. Think about it. OSB]
===========
On Apr 4, 3:32 pm, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote:
> Dear Second-opinion friends, > [quoted text clipped - 130 lines] > > Otis Neil Brooks - 04 Apr 2008 21:28 GMT Any evidence that the difference between those who try Bates' methods and those who do not is statistically significant ... with those who try Bates' methods actually /improving/ their vision?
No?
Interesting.
If you have all this insight into vision improvement, then why are you still a 6d myope?
That really does leave one wondering, no?
otisbrown@embarqmail.com - 04 Apr 2008 21:30 GMT "The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."
- Einstein
On Apr 4, 4:25 pm, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote:
> Subject: OBJECTION to the minus -- is the second-opinion. > [quoted text clipped - 229 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Neil Brooks - 04 Apr 2008 21:32 GMT On Apr 4, 1:25 pm, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote:
> [Comment: We also have the "Neil Brooks" effect which must be > understood. (Read sci.med.vision to understand this effect [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > about the preventive effect of a plus -- if used correctly. > Think about it. OSB] Didn't happen to catch this.
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that I have ever sued anybody for anything in my life?
[good luck with that]
Like everything you post, Otis, there's no factual basis for this. You're just constructing the argument that you think best fits your preconceived notion.
If there were some method that would prevent myopia, your assertion -- as always -- is that guarding its secrecy is SO IMPORTANT that nearly every eye doctor in the world is withholding it from themselves AND their loved ones.
Only to a pathological liar and an absolute f.cking idiot like yourself does THAT answer make MORE sense than ... it simply doesn't work.
My GOD, you're an idiot.
In this case, a libelous, lying, idiot.
Well done, lad!
Mike Tyner - 05 Apr 2008 03:36 GMT >the near point. In various lengths of time, we shall be able to > reduce the myopia one or two dioptres, sometimes more. Yup. Takes about 30 minutes with cyclopentolate.
Sometimes it's two diopters. Usually it's more like 1/2 diopter.
What's left is called "axial" myopia. That's the myopia that Bates and Otis can't fix.
-MT
Neil Brooks - 05 Apr 2008 04:28 GMT > <otisbr...@embarqmail.com> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > -MT There's some easy factual information for you, Otis.
Care to address it ... head on?
No?
Didn't think so.
otisbrown@embarqmail.com - 04 Apr 2008 21:45 GMT Subject: OBJECTION to the minus -- is the second-opinion.
In fact there are a number of medical people who have "objected" to the over-prescribed minus.
But a PREVENTIVE solution (like Bates) requires that the person START with the preventive method BEFORE ANY MINUS IS APPLIED.
Here is Dr. Prentice's discussion about the difficulties of plus- prevention.
Again, this is NEVER a "cure" -- but a way of avoiding entry into a negative refractive STATE for the fundamental eye.
Second-opinion best,
=================================
By Chalmer Prentice, M.D.
Transcription (c) A. Wik, 2004
----------+ | Chapter IX | +--------
The following are some very interesting experiments in myopia which can be verified by any operator, and which prove that refractive myopia depends on ciliary spasm, and that, even in axial myopia, considerable repression can sometimes be made at the near point. In either class of cases, repression must be made at the near point. In various lengths of time, we shall be able to reduce the myopia one or two dioptres, sometimes more.
In most cases satisfactory results will require considerable time and patience; but a few experiments after the following example will suffice to show that in some very advanced stages of myopia, it is possible to suppress, or at least check, its onward course by repression at the near point.
***** This fact renders the fitting of minus glasses to myopic eyes an open question. ******
EXAMPLE CASES
Age forty-three; myopia; had been wearing over the right eye -1.25 D, left eye -1 D, with little or no change for the space of two years; eyes in use more or less at the near point. I recommended the removal of the concave glasses for distant vision and prescribed +3.50 D for reading, writing and other office work.
After reading in these glasses for several days, the patient was able to read print twelve inches from the eyes. This patient was of more than ordinary intelligence and understood the aim of the effort. In six months I changed the glasses for reading and writing to a +4 D without seeing the patient. After using the +4 D glasses for several months he again came under my care for an examination, when the left eye gave twenty-twentieths of vision, while the right eye was very nearly the same, but the acuity was just perceptibly less.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Similar results have been attained in 34 like cases;
...but the process is very tedious for the patients, and unless their understanding is clear on the subject, it is almost impossible to induce them to undergo the trial.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[Comment: Anyone considering "prevention" must understand this issue. There is no "easy way" of prevention. As Chalmers said -- the person must fully understand this issue. It is for this reason that I suggest full transfer of "control" to the person himself. If he lacks the motivation to look at the chart, and "clear" himself, then no "third party" (i.e., OD) can do it for the person. This is why I separate a true-medical problem from preventing a negative refractive status in the natural eye. I believe that the above staement simply clarifies that point. OSB]
[Comment: We also have the "Neil Brooks" effect which must be understood. (Read sci.med.vision to understand this effect on an OD.)
CORRECTION:
I am an engineer. In my judgment Dr. C. Prentice was correct.
But equally, some numb-skull SIMILAR to Brooks could file "charges" against ANYONE who he does not "like".
Neil Brooks posted the "charge" in PA, that he THOUGHT that my second-opinion advocacy was "practicing medicine".
I responded by contacting the person involved and stated that having an opinion supporting PREVENTION (say like Steve Leung) is not "practice". Brooks always gets confused on that issue.
But I truly appreciate the type of implied threat this holds for ANY OD who would support plus prevention.
So Neil Brooks did indeed file a "charge".
But what I said was this (and not Neil Brooks) but some other numb skull:
A few people will SUE ANY OD WHO SUGGESTS PREVENTION-WITH-PLUS. For that reason, no majority-opinion OD will EVER help you with true-prevention -- and I don't blame them. I would not put myself at risk either -- nor do I expect any majority-opinion to put himself at professional risk either. But that is why you NEVER hear about the preventive effect of a plus -- if used correctly.
As Dr. Prentice pointed out -- it is in no sense easy to use the plus for prevention, and this is NOT a "cure", and therefore NOT MEDICAL.
For reference for second-opinion ODs read this site:
www.chinamyopia.org
Engineering second-opinion,
On Apr 4, 3:32 pm, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote:
> Dear Second-opinion friends, > [quoted text clipped - 130 lines] > > Otis Mike Tyner - 05 Apr 2008 03:33 GMT > I do not support the notion that this clearing a Snellen > is EVER a "cure". Then you're playing with words, a sleazy attempt to give credibility to a nonsense argument and avoid the standards and oversight that legitimate, licensed practitioners are subject to.
Color me surprised.
-MT
|
|
|