 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / June 2008Additional Clarification Requested of PClarkii
Subject: Additional Clarification Requested of P.Clarkii by Alex Eulenberg. Alex> Otis, feel free to repost this on sci.med.vision. P. Clarkii:> maybe if you could go back in time and take these individuals and correct their vision with minus lenses (aka "wretched minus") and then follow them over time, in the end they would still be at the same refractive state as they are after having suffered for years re-reading Snellen charts and using "the plus". Alex> Maybe they would and maybe they wouldn't. PClark> you have no proof that they wouldn't. Alex> And you have no proof that they would. So let us present the evidence for both arguments and let the public decide. PClark> as you know, it is commonplace for myopes to become less myopic over time. Alex> Is it? How common is it? In Ong et al 1999, where no subjects were using plus lenses, how many myopes became less myopic? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10416930 Alex> For that matter, I would like to see the percentage of myopes becoming less myopic in any study where age, use of lenses and amount of distance vision practice was controlled (e.g. the COMET study). PClark> so why do you think that all the prevention crap that you advocate is really the cause of them losing myopia? Alex> Perhaps it is actually not that commonplace. PClark> i have MANY patients who are myopes that get less myopic over time. Alex> I understand that MANY people win the lottery. PClark> perhaps I should claim I am a miracle worker. Alex> Perhaps you should ask your patients that get less myopic over time what they've been doing, and compare that to what you get when you ask your other patients of similar age and occupation. PClark> perhaps I should sucker people into buying my book, or trying some eye exercises or vitamins I concoct. Alex> If you are able to develop a program based on the practices of those whose eyesight has improved, and you have had success with it, why not publish a book about it? PClark> and isn't it interesting that the majority opinion includes almost all eye doctors and almost all vision researchers? Alex> Yes, it is quite interesting that the majority opinion is held by the majority. Perhaps you should write a book about that fascinating phenomenon. PClark> the prevention zealots tend to be the untrained inexperienced people who want to think that any phenomenon they observe is something special. Alex> There are also licensed optometrists, some with decades of experience, who question the full time use of full strength prescription for myopia: http://www.i-see.org/eyedocs.html PClark> losing some myopia is not special-- its commonplace. Alex> Exactly how commonplace is it, when full strength glasses are used full time by schoolchildren? I have an idea. Why not contact the researchers who conducted the COMET study and find out? Thanks in advance for your thoughtful reply, --Alex Otis, You have enough trouble honestly, rationally, logically, and accurately managing your OWN conversations. Serving as some sort of intellectually dishonest go-between for two different websites just moves you farther and farther into the theater of the absurd. Maybe you should stay over on Alex's list ... for a few decades. Procambarus clarkii is a freshwater crayfish species, native to the Southeastern United States, but found also on other continents, where it is often an invasive pest. It is known variously as the red swamp crawfish, red swamp crayfish, Louisiana crawfish or Louisiana crayfish. [edit] Range and range expansion The native range of P. clarkii is along the Gulf Coast from northern Mexico to the Florida panhandle, as well as inland, to southern Illinois and Ohio. It has also been introduced, sometimes deliberately, outside its natural range to countries in Asia, Africa, Europe and elsewhere in the Americas. In northern Europe, the populations are self maintaining but not expanding, while in southern Europe, P. clarkii is multiplying and actively colonising new territory, at the expense of the native crayfish, Astacus astacus and Austropotamobius spp.. Individuals are reported to be able to cross many miles of relatively dry ground, especially in wet seasons, although the aquarium trade and anglers may have hastened the spread in some areas (it is believed that anglers using P. clarkii as bait introduced it to the American state of Washington). Attempts have also been made to use P. clarkii as a biological control organism, to reduce levels of the snails involved in the life cycle of schistosomiasis, leading to the dispersal of P. clarkii in, for instance, Kenya. [edit] Ecology Red swamp crayfish, dorsal viewP. clarkii is most commonly found in warm fresh water, such as slowly-flowing rivers, marshes, reservoirs, irrigation systems and rice paddies. It is considered to be the most ecologically plastic species in the Order Decapoda, and is able to grow quickly even in only seasonally present water, being able to tolerate dry spells of up to four months. P. clarkii grows quickly, and is capable of reaching weights in excess of 50 g, and sizes of 5½– 12 cm long. It is also able to tolerate slightly saline water, which is unusual for a crayfish. The average lifetime of Procambarus clarkii is 5 years. It is known that some individuals have reached ages (in nature) over 6 years. [edit] Economic importance The rapid growth and ecological tolerance of P. clarkii facilitates a large farming industry in Louisiana, worth millions of dollars annually, and with more than 500 km² in cultivation. Harvests of P. clarkii account for a large majority of the crayfish produced in the United States and elsewhere. P. clarkii has also been introduced elsewhere for cultivation, such as Spain, where its success is attributable to its ability to colonise disturbed habitats that would be unsuitable for the native crayfish. P. clarkii is also marketed by biological supply companies for teaching and research. On Jun 26, 1:05 pm, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote: > Subject: Additional Clarification Requested of P.Clarkii by Alex > Eulenberg. [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > > --Alex More Otis Brown blather. Lovely. > More Otis Brown blather. > > Lovely. And no response from P.Clarkii -- to whom these questions were addressed. Enjoy, On Jun 27, 5:56 am, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote: > And no response from P.Clarkii -- to whom these questions were > addressed. That you wrote that is both ironic AND pathetic, Otis. Par for the course. How many times did I post legitimate questions to YOU -- only to have you dodge, evade, and ignore ... only until you could get your mommie, Alex Eulenberg, to answer them FOR you? > On Jun 27, 5:56 am, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > you dodge, evade, and ignore ... only until you could get your mommie, > Alex Eulenberg, to answer them FOR you? I see you deleted the message to which I replied, Otis. Fortunately for you: 1) Your post is still archived on countless servers, all over the world, 2) I quoted you in this response, 3) Your 'paper trail' of illogic, bad argument, bad science, wrong positions, lies, intellectual dishonesty, and unmitigated idiocy is voluminous ;-) On Jun 26, 11:47 pm, otisbr...@embarqmail.com wrote: > Procambarus clarkii is a freshwater crayfish species, native to the > Southeastern United States, but found also on other continents, where > it is often an invasive pest. It is known variously as the red swamp > crawfish, red swamp crayfish, Louisiana crawfish or Louisiana > crayfish. GREAT Otis! what else does google tell you about my nickname? are you smarting Otis? do your wounds bleed and hurt? how stupid Otis! are you calling in your "heavy artillery" when you start quoting Alex Eulenburg (lol) in response to what I have posted? If he is your big gun then you are just verifying what is already apparent-- you (and him) are illogical goons who understands very little about the scientific method and the real clinical reality surrounding refractive error in people. And for some reason you both are overly obsessed with "contra- theories" about refractive development. Thats OK with me but the problem is that there are no proofs for your theories and there are LOTS of studies that show you are wrong. Intelligent people would just shut up and start working to produce the proofs you need to be taken seriously. But you believe without unconditionally as if this is your own personal religion. Really Otis, you need a psychological evaluation. Do we really have to publicly flail you with scientific results like has happened in previous times on this newsgroup to drowned out your "wretched minus"/"the plus"/prevention rhetoric? Aren't you already embarrassed? Otis-- you are wearing no clothes to anyone who has followed this newsgroup for a while. either produce the proof that your prevention scheme works in humans or STFU! quit handing out medical advise since you have no license, no training, and no experience! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.