 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / June 2009Here is the judgment of a Ph.D. that the plus makes it better
Dear Bill, Here is a true demonstration of Soon's graph. But it takes a scientist to do it RIGHT. This is of course the second-opinion that a "lens" has a profound effect on the refractive STATE of the fundamental or "natural" eye. http://schwerdfeger.name/articles/pluslens.shtml It just takes a strong personal insight to understand the concept and do it right UNDER YOUR CONTROL, and ALWAYS before the person is put into an excessively strong minus -- and gets stair-case myopia from that minus. Engineering-Science best, Otis Ah. More unverifiable third-hand anecdotes from Uncle Otie. Gosh. THANKS, Uncle Otie! The story about your nearsighted niece (yet another failure of your method) was getting a bit stale.... > Dear Bill, > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Otis I have a PhD. My judgment is that wearing "the plus" has no effect on development of ammetropia. In article <8853088b-c7ae-4190-9e1c-e388bb8e8393@r16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, > Dear Bill, > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Otis I spent too much time trying to read your reference. I have difficulty with someone who designs a web bag in a way that makes reading difficult. On contracts, it is usually done with fine print. In this case it was done with the equivalent of light gray text on somewhat darker gray background. I tried copying the text to Microsoft word. In the end, the author admitted he knew nothing about eyes. It was a waste of time. It certainly did not seem to be a scientific paper. Bill  SignatureMost people go to college to get their missing high school education. > In article > <8853088b-c7ae-4190-9e1c-e388bb8e8...@r16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > the end, the author admitted he knew nothing about eyes. It was a waste > of time. It certainly did not seem to be a scientific paper. Its author is an IT guy. Likely, he's somebody that does a great deal of near work. My guess is that he was exhibiting pseudomyopia. That's very common among people who make their lives via near work. The use of a strong cycloplegic agent (eg, homatropine) would have elicited this. Reading glasses ARE COMMONLY prescribed for near work, as are bifocals. There's zero evidence (to my knowledge) that this sort of accommodative issue becomes axial-length myopia. Otis thinks he's discovered fire or the wheel. Not so much. Plus lenses are commonly prescribed for numerous types of accommodative or binocular disorders. Because Otis doesn't understand what these are, he can't really recognize this. Instead, he believes that -- if insulin prevents diabetics from slipping into a coma -- then insulin must be good for EVERYBODY. In effect, he recommends insulin to children and other asymptomatic people ... with no understanding of the systems it affects and no concern for the people to whom he recommends it. > Dear Bill, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > http://schwerdfeger.name/articles/pluslens.shtml Sometimes I wonder whether you actually read the links you post as support for your ideas. This one actually states flat out that it is not the second opinion. Some quotes from the above posted link: "a disclaimer is necessary. I do not subscribe to ... the idea that any one of a handful of "alternative" vision therapies, such as the Bates method, have a grain of validity to them. My experience can be entirely explained by present mainstream theories." "I know little to nothing about the inner workings of the eye" "[My Premise:] Nearsightedness is the result of the eye's focusing muscles becoming stiff after being held tense for long periods of time during close work. In all fairness, there is some doubt as to whether this premise is actually true." "In healthy eyes, nearsightedness falls, broadly, into one of two sorts: pseudomyopia and axial myopia. [1] There is a universal consensus that the premise is true with regard to pseudomyopia, since pseudomyopia is just that: the eye's focusing muscles becoming stiff. But there is less agreement when it comes to axial myopia (far more common than pseudomyopia)," "Also, note that only pseudomyopia, not axial myopia, can be reversed by this method, and that almost all cases of nearsightedness above one diopter or so are cases of axial myopia" Schwerdfeger's link and treatment is only about pseudomyopia. Nothing in it supports "stair case myopia" caused by minus lenses. Judy > Sometimes I wonder whether you actually read the links you post as > support for your ideas. This one actually states flat out that it is > not the second opinion. Judy, You're quite a patient and remarkable person! It's rare that I'll read ANYTHING referenced by Otis, at this point, but you keep hanging in there :-) Bless your heart for catching THIS ONE, too! And ... of course ... you're right: it's astounding how often he posts references to statements by people that DO NOT SUPPORT or FLAT-OUT CONTRADICT Otis's basic premises. After all these years, I still can't QUITE pick which fits best, in describing him: an unmitigated idiot, mentally ill (perhaps pre-senile dementia), or visually impaired to the point that he just can't read what he types or posts.... |
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.