| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Medicine - Vision Forum » The Cause of Myopia
Page 4 of 5 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Dan Abel |
 Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 3:27 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <81cmh.28096$hI.4903@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>,
"William Stacy, O.D." <wstacy@obase.net> wrote:
Quote: Mike Tyner wrote:
dr.seagal@yahoo.com> wrote
Could you please also answer the two questions above, based on your
textbooks, etc.?
Have yours gone missing?
As I've said, I'm not sure if he/she/it has even graduated high school
yet. And responding to this troll's posts directly is just what it wants.
How do you graduate a high school?
ObPetPeeve: You graduate *from* a high school. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dan Abel |
| Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 3:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <1167679070.154084.28050@k21g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Dr Judy" <mpace99@rogers.com> wrote:
Quote: Dan Abel wrote:
.
Sometimes I am NIFOC (Nude in Front of the Computer).
Too much information!!!
I don't remember, but I suspect that I was born nude. I was present at
the births of my children, and they were also born nude.
At this time of year, I wear clothing, lots of it. I sleep nude, but we
have a heated water bed. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| William Stacy, O.D. |
| Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 3:46 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dan Abel wrote:
Quote:
ObPetPeeve: You graduate *from* a high school.
Certainly true, and I'll try to have less of my wife's midwestern talk
rub off on me. But see my last post about really important peeves... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Scott Seidman |
| Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 11:45 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
dr.seagal@yahoo.com wrote in news:1167555051.715956.158750
@h40g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Quote: Dear all,
Since the conventional optometrists here kept hiding what they know
about the cause of myopia, I will share a little bit (which is all I
know) about the cause of myopia.
Myopia is caused by ......
Yo, S.
Can you share a tad with us. Your user name has "dr." in it. Are you a
doctor? This isn't of course, to say that if you aren't you should have
nothing to say, but just to clarify your positions.
--
Scott
Reverse name to reply |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 4:29 am |
|
|
|
|
Dear retinula, p.clarkii, Mike Tyner, DrG, Dr Judy, Scott Seidman,
fellow optometrists, current myopes, future myopes, parents of current
myopes and parents of future myopes,
Why bifocal studies failed? Check it out here:
http://www.geocities.com/realeyecare/why_bifocal_studies_failed.html
Bifocal studies failed for several reasons which will be discussed
here.
The "typical" bifocal uses an OVER-PRESCRIBED or FULL-PRESCRIBED minus
lens for distance correction with an "add" of +0.50 to +1.50 Diopter
for near correction.
For example, if a myope is at 3D myopic, his bifocal will be -3.00D or
more for distance correction with an "add" of ,say, +1.00 Diopter which
will add up to -2.00D for near correction.
Now, normally speaking, how many hours does a child spend looking at
objects 20 feet or further away? Half an hour? One hour? Nowadays,
most children spend their time indoor. Even if they spend their time
outdoor, they are not looking at objects 20 feet or further away the
whole time they spend outdoor. So, on average, we could say the
children spend about 10% of their waking hours (don't be picky here,
this is just an example, hope you get the idea) looking at objects 20
feet or further away. This means their eyes are completely relax for
only 10% of their waking hours. (Figure 17A)
Now, when we (or the children) spend our time indoor, how many hours do
we spend looking at objects 20 feet or further away? How big is our
house? How big is the living room, the dining room, the bedroom, the
bathroom? How big is our office, or cubicle? How big is the
classroom? etc. Again, when we (or the children) are staying indoor,
how many hours do we spend looking at objects 20 feet or further away?
I believe it is very close to zero. When we (or the children) are
staying indoor, we don't spend the whole time looking at the clock on
the wall in the living room from another end of the living room. Even
if we do, the eyes are still under a constant state of stress (due to
accommodation) since the living room is not 20 feet long.
What do we (or the children) do when we are staying indoor? We eat, we
chat, we (the children) play with toys, we take a shower or a bath,
etc. (you get the idea). When we eat, how far away is the dinner plate
from our eyes? When we chat, how far away are the people we are
chatting with away from our eyes? When the children play with their
toys, how far away are their toys away from their eyes? When we take a
shower, how far away do we look?
In summary, the eyes are under a constant state of stress (due to
accommodation) if fully-prescribed minus lens are used, especially when
staying indoor. (Figure 17B)
This is one of the reasons bifocal studies failed.
The bifocal studies might not have failed if the top segment for
distance correction was lowered by one diopter or so. (Figure 17C) We
will discuss this more later.
The second reason bifocal studies failed is that the "add" is not
enough. Doing close work with regular glasses without the "add", the
eye is under a lot of stress as shown in Figure 19A.
With an "add" of +1.00 Diopter, assuming a reading distance of 13
inches (1.1 feet), the eye is still under a lot of stress as shown in
Figure 19B.
The bifocal studies might not have failed if the "add" was increased to
+3.00 Diopter or so, assuming a reading distance of 13 inches, which
would have eliminated accommodation completely. (Figure 19C)
The third reason bifocal studies failed is that the top segment
(distance correction) is incorrectly used for reading since most
children do not know or were not taught how to use bifocal glasses
correctly. So, even if the "add" were increased to +3.00 Diopter or
so, and assuming a reading distance of 13 inches, the studies would
still have failed since reading with the top segment puts the eyes
under a tremendous amount of stress as shown in Figure 19A.
The fourth reason bifocal studies failed is that the reading distance
is too close.
Do children normally read at 13 inches or more? Normally speaking,
most children don't. So, even if the "add" were increased to +3.00
Diopter or so, the studies would still have failed since most children
read at a very close distance which puts the eyes under a tremendous
amount of stress as shown in Figure 19D.
In summary, bifocal studies failed for these reasons:
1. The top segment for distance correction is too strong
2. The bottom segment for near correction is not weak enough, i.e., the
"add" is not enough
3. The top segment is used for reading
4. The reading distance is too close
Now, let me try to answer some of your questions.
retinula wrote:
Quote: How do you explain the statistical data that demonstrates that plus
lenses don't prevent progression. and that bifocals don't
significantly reduce progression.
Bifocal studies were trying to prove that if reducing accommodation
would reduce or stop myopia progression. The results prove that
bifocals don't significantly reduce myopia progression because they
DID NOT SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE ACCOMMODATION.
As I said, the top segment for distance correction is too strong. So
the top segment does NOT reduce accommodation AT ALL. And the
"add" is not enough which means the accommodation is only VERY
SLIGHTLY REDUCED, even if the bifocal glasses were correctly used.
Most other studies failed for the same reasons. For instance, plus
lenses don't slow myopia progression or prevent myopia if, say, a
+1.00D is used and the children are reading at six inches. There is
still a tremendous amount of accommodation involved. Removing glasses
for reading doesn't help much either if the children are reading at
six inches.
p.clarkii@gmail.com wrote:
Quote: how come bifocal spectacles, plus reading glasses, and removing glasses
for reading don't slow myopia progression?
are the rigorous statistical studies that demonstrate the above
treatments don't work all wrong and only your old theory right?
explain?
These studies are not wrong. These studies were just not done PROPERLY
or CORRECTLY. My old theory is EXACTLY the same as the theories these
studies are based on. The only difference is that I do it properly in
my office. I TRY to COMPLETELY ELIMINATE ACCOMMODATION. More on this
later.
p.clarkii@gmail.com wrote:
Quote: how come one study showed that myopic undercorrection actually caused
INCREASED myopia?
Again, undercorrection does not do much if not done properly or
correctly. For instance, if a -2.00D myopic child is wearing -1.50D or
-1.00D glasses all the time, including for reading, this child's
myopia WILL INCREASE, even in my office. I will share with you later
things that need to done so that myopia stops progressing.
p.clarkii@gmail.com wrote:
Quote: how come one study showed that myopic OVERCORRECTION did not result in
increased myopia in children? it should have caused them to get more
myopic according to your (=old disproven) theory.
Did you mean myopia in children with overcorrection actually stops in
this study?
If overcorrection does not result in increased myopia in children, I
guess next time when a -1.00D myopic child comes to your office, you
can let him/her wear -5.00D glasses to stop his myopia from
progressing. More on this later.
p.clarkii@gmail.com wrote:
Quote: do you believe there is a conspiracy among educated vision researchers
around the world to hide the real truth so that they all cook their
data to show that these treatments, which should work if your idea is
right, don't actually work at all? do you think they are stupid and
only you are smart?
Yes, I believe there is a _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I don't think they are stupid and I don't think I am the only smart
one. I am not smart.
I think they are EXTREMELY smart. They are BRILLIANT.
p.clarkii@gmail.com wrote:
Quote: are your REALLY a doctor graduating from a REAL accredited optometry
school?
Yes
p.clarkii@gmail.com wrote:
Quote: how come credible eye doctors don't agree with you? if you claim they
do, then please list them.
The following are some of the credible eye doctors and doctors that
agree with me:
Lee Anthony De Luca, M.D., Ophthalmologist
Xu Guang-di, M.D., Ophthalmologist
Edward C. Kondrot, M.D., Ophthalmologist
Deborah Banker, M.D., Ophthalmologist
E.F. Darling, M.D., Ophthalmologist
W.B. MacCracken, M.D.
Mei Xiang-Yang, M.D.
Wang Jing-Ying, M.D.
John L. Fielder, D.C., D.O., N.D.
Dhiren Gala, B.Sc., D.H.M.S., D.O., D. Ac., C.G.O., C.C.H., A.R.S.H.
D. R. Gala, N.D., D.N.O., D.C.O.
Sanjay Gala, M.B. (BOM.), M.S. (ENT)
Stan Appelbaum, O.D.
Marc R. Grossman, O.D.
Steve Leung, O.D.
Joel H. Warshowsky, O.D.
Jay M. Cohen, O.D.
Sidney Groffman, O.D.
Rochelle Mozlin, O.D.
Henry Ettinger, O.D.
James L. Cox, O.D.
Neena Gabrielle, O.D.
.......and many more ......
p.clarkii@gmail.com wrote:
Quote: can you actually answer these questions directly?
Yes. I believe I have.
retinula wrote:
Quote: What treatment do you propose for people to prevent myopia that doesn't
involve one of the above disproven approaches?
The above disproven approaches were disproven ON PURPOSE by these
BRILLIANT people to hide the real truth in order to make these theories
or treatments "disappear" from optometry school and from this
world. The above approaches are the treatments which I propose to
prevent or control myopia. The above approaches are really simple to
implement and easy to use and really work if done PROPERLY or
CORRECTLY. Other treatments that doesn't involve the above
approaches include yoga, acupuncture, acupressure, qigong, etc. which I
am not currently into.
p.clarkii@gmail.com wrote:
Quote: do you believe there is a conspiracy among educated vision researchers
around the world to hide the real truth .......
So you knew it (the _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _)?
retinula wrote:
Quote: Quit trying to be elusive and just tell us exactly what you believe,
why you have chosen to believe that and to disregard the science, and
what the treatments are that you suggest?
I don't think I am the one who is trying to be elusive. My simple
questions got answers like "NOBODY KNOWS", "NO ONE KNOWS",
"It doesn't contribute much", "That would be pointless (to
explain...)" etc. So you know who is trying to be elusive.
retinula wrote:
Quote: ...... just tell us exactly what you believe,
why you have chosen to believe that and to disregard the science, and
what the treatments are that you suggest?
I am going to tell all of you now what I believe. I believe myopia is
caused by sustained accommodation as a result of prolonged close work.
I have chosen to believe that because THAT IS SCIENCE.
Which part of this is not SCIENCE?
When talking about the cause of myopia, most optometrists /researchers
/textbooks /papers /articles will say things like "near work may not
be associated with myopia progression", "near work is somewhat
related", "near work doesn't contribute much", etc. They argue
that there are people who became myopic without ever doing near work.
"I guess there are maybe 95% of the people who became myopic without
ever doing near work." Am I right?
It seems like conventional optometry teaching/optometrists/researchers
like to use rare cases to disprove a theory or to deny the real
science.
(Pardon my poor English writing skill and expressing skill as English
is my seventh language but I hope you get the idea.)
"Diet is not the cause of obesity since 2% of the obese people have
healthy diet and 98% of the obese people have high fat, high calorie
diet. And there are those people, about 1% of the population who have
high fat, high calorie diet who do not become obese. So, diet is NOT
the cause of obesity." I guess this is science.
"Neosporin and bandages should not be use to treat a wound since they
can't cure the wound on the people with diabetes." This is also
science.
Dear fellow optometrists,
Wake up, wake up, rise and shine!
retinula wrote:
Quote: ...... just tell us exactly what you believe,
why you have chosen to believe that and to disregard the science, and
what the treatments are that you suggest?
The treatment that I suggest is to try to eliminate accommodation
completely. In real life, it is almost impossible to completely
eliminate accommodation. That why I said "TRY TO". Try to reduce
accommodation as much as possible.
For example, when a -3.00D myopic child come to my office, I will check
the minus lens power needed for the child to see 20/30, 20/40, 20/60
etc. Of course I will also check the child's full prescription but I
won't give the child glasses with full prescription. I will ask the
child how far away he/she sits from the board in the classroom and how
big the teachers' writing is. Normally speaking, the teachers'
writing is about the size of "HTYO" (20/60) and "VUAXT" (20/40)
on my eye chart. If he/she sits in the front (close to the board),
then the glasses for the board may be around -1.50D or so. If he/she
sits in the middle (further away from the board), then the glasses for
the board may be around -2.00D or so. If he/she sits in the back (far
away from the board), then the glasses for the board may be around
-2.50D or so. If transparencies with overhead projector are used in the
classroom, then the glasses for the board will be stronger (less
undercorrect).
I seldom give bifocal glasses to the children since most children will
not use bifocal glasses properly. They will use the top segment for
near work, especially the younger children. So, I will tell the
children to "push" the glasses (non-bifocal) up when copying stuff
from the board. "Glasses for the board, bare-eye for the note pad"
is what I normally tell them. I will also tell them to sit upright and
stay as far away from the note pad as possible.
The glasses for the board (distance correction) is only used for the
classroom board, for watching TV at home or movie in the theater, for
bicycle riding, for driving (age 16 and above), for operating dangerous
machinery (I don't think children do this, but this is what I tell
them), for looking at objects very far away (signs on the street,
etc.), for outdoor when needed. I tell them to use the glasses for
distance correction as little as possible. The only time this pair of
glasses is used indoor is when watching TV or movie.
Normally, there will be a second pair of glasses for close work
(reading, writing, computer work, etc.) For example, a -6.00D myopic
child will need one while a -3.00D myopic child may or may not need
one. The power of the lens of this glasses depends on the
reading/working distance this child is comfortable with or used to. If
this child (-6.00D myopic) prefers to read at around 13 inches or so,
his/her glasses for reading will be around -3.00D. If this child
prefers to read at around 16 inches or so, his/her glasses for reading
will be around -3.50D. If this child prefers to read at around 20
inches or so, his/her glasses for reading will be around -4.00D. This
child will also be told to read at the far point. "Push the book as
far away as possible until the letters on the book become very slightly
blurry. If you want, pull the book in slightly and the letters on the
book become perfectly clear and read this way." This is what I
normally tell the children to do. The purpose of this is to completely
eliminate accommodation when doing prolonged close work.
Again, glasses for distance correction is used as little as possible.
As for the glasses for near correction, it can be used all the time or
only for near work. For example, a -3.50D myopic teenager can used
his/her -1.00D glasses all the time or he/she can just use it for
prolonged close work.
When accommodation is reduced to a point where axial elongation stops,
myopia stops progressing, i.e., myopia is under control. For younger
children, it is best to try to completely eliminate accommodation in
order to keep myopia under control while for older adults, a slight
decrease in accommodation (using slightly undercorrect glasses) is all
it takes to stop myopia progression.
Accommodation is a major cause of myopia and myopia progression. That
is why the rate of progression of adulthood myopia is lower than the
rate of progression of childhood myopia and that is also why
youth-onset myopia is much much more common than adult-onset myopia and
late-adult-onset myopia since the power of accommodation of a young
child is 20D while the power of accommodation is about 8D at age 30 and
around 2D at age 50. This also explains why myopia progression
normally stops at adulthood or late-adulthood and not during childhood.
Those whose myopia continues to progress even at late-adulthood could
mean their eyes are still very powerful (like a younger person) or the
duration of their close work is too long or both or some other reasons.
Again, don't try to use rare cases to disprove a theory or to deny
the real science.
Since accommodation causes myopia and myopia progression, minus lens
should be carefully and properly used as minus lens will further cause
accommodation which causes myopia progression. If minus lenses can be
used improperly without any harm or side effects, there is no need to
require a prescription to buy eyeglasses with minus lens, as in the
case of plus lenses (reading glasses) which can be bought everywhere
without prescription.
If overcorrection is so safe, there is no need to have optometrists in
this world. When a person becomes myopic, simply go to the grocery
store or department store and get a pair of glasses with minus lenses.
If -1.00D is not clear enough, get -5.00D or -10.00D which will produce
a clearer image. Glasses of three powers (-1.00D, -5.00D and -10.00D
or maybe more) in the store solve most myopia problems in the world.
If I understand it correctly, prescription medicine must be used as
directed. Why isn't there any direction for using the prescription
glasses (minus lens)?
If prescription glasses are used as directed, myopia progression will
stop. And that is what I do. I give the myopes in my office
directions for using the prescription glasses properly.
Please don't blame unknown reasons as the cause of myopia and myopia
progression. "Nobody knows", "No one knows" etc. And please
don't be irresponsible eye doctors by refusing to solve myopia
problems. And please don't degrade yourselves from eye doctors to
eyeglass fitter.
Myopia is caused by bad habits (reading too close, etc.) and myopia
progression is caused by bad habits and improperly used prescription
glasses. If prescription glasses are used properly and bad habits are
changed to good habits, myopia progression simply stops.
Again, don't try to use rare cases to disprove a theory or to deny
the real science. I use common cases, and common sense. And that is
my approach to solving myopia problems, one of which is myopia
progression. And myopia progression stops in my office. The success
rate is 100%.
Quote: dr.seagal@yahoo.com> wrote:
Just to confirm, what is the success rate for myopia control in your office?
Mike Tyner wrote:
Zero.
dr.seagal@yahoo.com> wrote:
What would you do if you know of a myopia control method that really works?
Mike Tyner wrote:
I'd use it.
Dr. Leukoma wrote:
It it was safe, efficacious, and practical to use, then I would employ
it. If it involves putting small children into helmets with plus
lenses in front of their eyes 24/7, then I would defer.
retinula wrote:
Quote: ...... just tell us exactly what you believe,
why you have chosen to believe that and to disregard the science, and
what the treatments are that you suggest?
dr.seagal@yahoo.com> wrote:
I will tell you if you, just like me, also want to quit destroying
myopes' eyes by making them more and more myopic year after year.
retinula wrote:
YES-- i will change what i do if you can convince me, just get on with
it!
I have shared with you a little bit of what I know and what I do to
stop myopia progression. I hope all of you keep your promise and start
saving myopes' eyes.
Sincerely,
S.Seagal, O.D.
http://www.geocities.com/realeyecare |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 8:21 am |
|
|
|
|
dr.seagal@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote: http://www.geocities.com/realeyecare/why_bifocal_studies_failed.html
Bifocal studies failed for several reasons which will be discussed
here.
..
p.clarkii@gmail.com wrote:
how come bifocal spectacles, plus reading glasses, and removing glasses
for reading don't slow myopia progression?
..
These studies are not wrong. These studies were just not done PROPERLY
or CORRECTLY. My old theory is EXACTLY the same as the theories these
studies are based on. The only difference is that I do it properly in
my office. I TRY to COMPLETELY ELIMINATE ACCOMMODATION. More on this
later.
we are waiting for your answer. using plus readers and having myopes
take off their glasses to read reduces accommodation. then why doesn't
it slow myopia progression?
Quote: Again, undercorrection does not do much if not done properly or
correctly.
indeed. it even makes myopia progress faster even though it reduces
accommodative demand. why>
Quote: p.clarkii@gmail.com wrote:
how come one study showed that myopic OVERCORRECTION did not result in
increased myopia in children? it should have caused them to get more
myopic according to your (=old disproven) theory.
Did you mean myopia in children with overcorrection actually stops in
this study?
no-- i mean it stayed the same as the group who were properly
corrected. but the results showed that overcorrection DIDN'T causes
accelerated myopia as your theory would predict. please explain this
result.
Quote: p.clarkii@gmail.com wrote:
do you believe there is a conspiracy among educated vision researchers
around the world to hide the real truth so that they all cook their
data to show that these treatments, which should work if your idea is
right, don't actually work at all? do you think they are stupid and
only you are smart?
Yes, I believe there is a _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
please fill in the blank. no games. just say it outright.
Thank you for responding with details. If you change my mind, i will
change the way i practice but the burden of proof is one you. please
continue my friend. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dr. Leukoma |
| Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 8:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
dr.seagal@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote: Please don't blame unknown reasons as the cause of myopia and myopia
progression. "Nobody knows", "No one knows" etc. And please
don't be irresponsible eye doctors by refusing to solve myopia
problems. And please don't degrade yourselves from eye doctors to
eyeglass fitter.
You don't know what causes myopia and you surely don't know how to
prevent it. If you did, certainly you and your cohorts would be able
to construct an experiment that would satisfy the scientific community
and publish it.
I think that it is about time that you and your "cohorts" start acting
like responsible doctors and scientists and publish the proof.
DrG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 8:55 am |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Leukoma wrote:
Quote: dr.seagal@yahoo.com wrote:
Please don't blame unknown reasons as the cause of myopia and myopia
progression. "Nobody knows", "No one knows" etc. And please
don't be irresponsible eye doctors by refusing to solve myopia
problems. And please don't degrade yourselves from eye doctors to
eyeglass fitter.
You don't know what causes myopia and you surely don't know how to
prevent it. If you did, certainly you and your cohorts would be able
to construct an experiment that would satisfy the scientific community
and publish it.
I think that it is about time that you and your "cohorts" start acting
like responsible doctors and scientists and publish the proof.
DrG
or just admit "i don't know but i have a theory".
if you choose to treat patients based upon theory rather than proven
fact, then go do so. most of us won't, nor would i ever want anybody
in my family to go to a doctor who does. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dr. Leukoma |
| Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:44 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
p.clarkii@gmail.com wrote:
Quote: or just admit "i don't know but i have a theory".
if you choose to treat patients based upon theory rather than proven
fact, then go do so. most of us won't, nor would i ever want anybody
in my family to go to a doctor who does.
I dunno...
In the absence of good clinical data, a good theory is better than
nothing, especially if no harm is done. However, to discount an
abundance of clinical data in favor of an outdated theory is clearly
unreasonable. Even worse is to cling to an outdated theory and
ignoring the clinical data that disagrees with it...(as in "OK, let's
not get picky here").
DrG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Mike Tyner |
| Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:47 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<dr.seagal@yahoo.com> wrote
Quote: Again, don't try to use rare cases to disprove a theory or to deny
the real science. I use common cases, and common sense. And that is
my approach to solving myopia problems, one of which is myopia
progression. And myopia progression stops in my office. The success
rate is 100%.
We call this "charlatanry."
Quote: I have shared with you a little bit of what I know and what I do to
stop myopia progression. I hope all of you keep your promise and start
saving myopes' eyes.
And I hope you will learn to do a t-test.
-MT |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dr. Leukoma |
| Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
p.clarkii@gmail.com wrote:
Quote: or just admit "i don't know but i have a theory".
These people do not want to be confronted with contradictory evidence,
and they certainly don't want to bother with newer and better theories,
and heaven forbid that they should actually have to show the rest of us
some proof of a kind that will withstand scientific scrutiny. What
about those studies? Well, they were all flawed.... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Scott Seidman |
| Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
dr.seagal@yahoo.com wrote in news:1167899395.468298.147740@
6g2000cwy.googlegroups.com:
Quote: Dear retinula, p.clarkii, Mike Tyner, DrG, Dr Judy, Scott Seidman,
fellow optometrists, current myopes, future myopes, parents of current
myopes and parents of future myopes,
Don't get me wrong-- I have no interest in what you have to say-- I was
just trying to make sure you're not misrepresenting yourself as a doctor
with your screen name. Frankly, I'm still not convinced that you're a
doctor, but at least now you unambiguously say you are one.
--
Scott
Reverse name to reply |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| William Stacy |
| Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 12:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
There is no question that he/she/it is not a doctor of any kind, except
maybe the kind you can get on the internet for a small price. I'm
pretty sure it hasn't graduated from secondary school yet due to the
childishness of the prose and his admission of no access to any text
books on the subject. I'm amazed so many real docs are responding to
the trolling at all...
w.stacy, o.d.
Scott Seidman wrote:
Quote: Frankly, I'm still not convinced that you're a
doctor, but at least now you unambiguously say you are one.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dan Abel |
| Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <1167899395.468298.147740@6g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>,
dr.seagal@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote: the real science. I use common cases, and common sense. And that is
my approach to solving myopia problems, one of which is myopia
progression. And myopia progression stops in my office. The success
rate is 100%.
100%? You can cure patients who aren't compliant? Children are
notoriously non-compliant. Especially when they can see just fine. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| William Stacy |
| Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:39 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dan Abel wrote:
Quote: 100%? You can cure patients who aren't compliant? Children are
notoriously non-compliant. Especially when they can see just fine.
100% of 0 is 0, so I guess the statement is true. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 4 of 5 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Oct 11, 2008 3:06 am
|
|