| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Medicine - Vision Forum » The Cause of Myopia
Page 1 of 5 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Guest |
 Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:50 am |
|
|
|
|
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 ......
(check it out here)
http://www.geocities.com/realeyecare
Sincerely,
S.Seagal |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Neil Brooks |
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 5:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
dr.seagal@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote: 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 ......
(check it out here)
http://www.geocities.com/realeyecare
We know where he/she/it learned "logic:" from Elevator Boy
University--a correspondence school based in the Falkland Islands.
"High Myopia does not normally occur without the use of the
prescription glasses(minus lens)"
Let me help straighten out the logical fallacy here ... in CASE anybody
doesn't see it. Just like Elevator Boy's comment that truck drivers
don't get high myopia. My answer? Maybe high myopes don't become
truck drivers? IOW: correlation does NOT imply causation, no matter
how much you might like it to.
High myopes were usually once low or moderate myopes .... a class of
people who commonly wear eyeglasses. There. Solved that fallacious
assumption for you.
Dr. Seagal: may I be among the first to say you're a bona fide bozo?
I'm sure you haven't prevented myopia in a single person. Go run a
randomized, controlled trial. Otherwise, you're a fear-mongering (and
arguably libelous) snake oil salesman extraordinaire.
Nothing on your website even APPROACHES what you call "proof." You're
a fool if you believe it does. A fool just like Elevator Boy. And
like Elevator Boy, you SWEAR that optometrists tell myopes to wear
their glasses ALL THE TIME, no matter how often EVERY optometrist says
otherwise.
Don't let the facts stand in the way of a good story, "Dr." Seagal.
You're a riot!
Thanks ... and Happy New Year! I'm sure your patients can expect the
same level of expertise and professionalism from your optometric
practice that is clearly demonstrated in your website.
Big hugs,
Neil |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dr. Leukoma |
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 10:42 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
dr.seagal@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote:
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.
Interesting theory, Seagal, but not new. Good luck with that. Again,
please publish your results.
DrG. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Mike Tyner |
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 12:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<dr.seagal@yahoo.com> wrote
Quote: Since the conventional optometrists here kept hiding what they know
about the cause of myopia,
Oh... you've uncovered the conspiracy. Is it just the optometrists, or are
there other professions involved?
Quote: I will share a little bit (which is all I
know) about the cause of myopia.
And you obviously know more about myopia than you do statistics.
Quote: Myopia is caused by ......
wearing glasses. Right. Thanks ever so much for clearing that up. If nobody
wears glasses, nobody gets myopia.
If the long-necked Paduang women wore their rings on frames out in front of
their eyes, would their eyes get longer?
-MT |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dan Abel |
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 1:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <1167555051.715956.158750@h40g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
dr.seagal@yahoo.com wrote:
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 ......
(check it out here)
http://www.geocities.com/realeyecare
Sincerely,
S.Seagal
So, tomorrow will you tell us the causes and cures for cancer? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 1:49 pm |
|
|
|
|
Dan Abel wrote:
Quote: So, tomorrow will you tell us the causes and cures for cancer?
Dear Dan Abel,
I would if you want me to share it with you.
I feel so sorry for your retinal detachment problem. A few of the
myopes who came to see me had problems like retinal tear and vitreous
detachment which will lead to retinal detachment and the problems are
solved naturally and easily without buckles, surgeries, etc.
Had you seen a REAL optometrist before your retina detached or when
your myopia was not that high, you would not have to deal with the
problems you are facing right now.
The proofs I listed are just a small portion of the data we have. More
proofs will be listed there.
If you do your own observation/study/survey on the people around you
(your relatives, friends,
classmates, teachers, professors, colleagues, co-workers, patients or
myopes in your office, parents of your children's classmates or
friends, stranger you meet at the grocery store/bus station/airport),
you will find that those who wear their glasses all the time since
childhood have medium or high myopia and those who only wear their
glasses when it is
necessary (for driving, classroom board, etc.) have low myopia.
Myopes from all over the world proof this theory.
I hope your retinal detachment problem is getting better.
Retinal detachment is the term I use to warn the myopic children in my
office so that they take good care of their eyes to keep their myopia
under control following my direction. So far, it is very successful.
Happy New Year.
Sincerely,
S.Seagal |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| retinula |
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 2:26 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
How do you explain the statistical data that demonstrates that plus
lenses don't prevent progression. and that bifocals don't
significantly reduce progression. and that having myopes remove their
glasses to read doesn't significantly reduce progression. and that
undercorrecting myopia actually DOES statistically increase the
development of myopia?
What treatment do you propose for people to prevent myopia that doesn't
involve one of the above disproven approaches?
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?
=============================
dr.seagal@yahoo.com wrote:
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 ......
(check it out here)
http://www.geocities.com/realeyecare
Sincerely,
S.Seagal |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dr. Leukoma |
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 2:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
dr.seagal@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote:
The proofs I listed are just a small portion of the data we have. More
proofs will be listed there.
The so-called "proofs" aren't really proofs at all. So, if you intend
to present more unscientific data like that, don't waste your time
posting it here.
Quote: If you do your own observation/study/survey on the people around you
(your relatives, friends,
classmates, teachers, professors, colleagues, co-workers, patients or
myopes in your office, parents of your children's classmates or
friends, stranger you meet at the grocery store/bus station/airport),
you will find that those who wear their glasses all the time since
childhood have medium or high myopia and those who only wear their
glasses when it is
necessary (for driving, classroom board, etc.) have low myopia.
In other words, those with high genetic myopia develop it earlier in
childhood, and those who don't need to wear their glasses all the time
don't wear their glasses all the time whereas those who do, do.
Brilliant.
DrG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dan Abel |
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <1167587380.253773.25660@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>,
dr.seagal@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote: Dan Abel wrote:
So, tomorrow will you tell us the causes and cures for cancer?
Dear Dan Abel,
I would if you want me to share it with you.
So, tomorrow will you give us a cure for death?
Quote: I hope your retinal detachment problem is getting better.
It generally doesn't get better. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:36 pm |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Leukoma wrote:
Quote: dr.seagal@yahoo.com wrote:
The proofs I listed are just a small portion of the data we have. More
proofs will be listed there.
The so-called "proofs" aren't really proofs at all. So, if you intend
to present more unscientific data like that, don't waste your time
posting it here.
Dear DrG,
If those are not some of the proofs, then WHAT IS PROOF?
Quote: If you do your own observation/study/survey on the people around you
(your relatives, friends,
classmates, teachers, professors, colleagues, co-workers, patients or
myopes in your office, parents of your children's classmates or
friends, stranger you meet at the grocery store/bus station/airport),
you will find that those who wear their glasses all the time since
childhood have medium or high myopia and those who only wear their
glasses when it is
necessary (for driving, classroom board, etc.) have low myopia.
In other words, those with high genetic myopia develop it earlier in
childhood, and those who don't need to wear their glasses all the time
don't wear their glasses all the time whereas those who do, do.
Brilliant.
DrG
I would be EXTREMELY SURPRISED if you could show me one myope who
has acquired myopia whose prescription is over -7.00D without ever
wearing
glasses in his/her life!!
S.Seagal |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:47 pm |
|
|
|
|
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. and that having myopes remove their
glasses to read doesn't significantly reduce progression. and that
undercorrecting myopia actually DOES statistically increase the
development of myopia?
Dear retinula,
I know why these studies failed. Do you need me to include simple
physics/math equation and drawing/diagram with explanation OR just
explanation alone is enough for you?
Quote: What treatment do you propose for people to prevent myopia that doesn't
involve one of the above disproven approaches?
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 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.
S.Seagal |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dr. Leukoma |
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 5:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
dr.seagal@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote: If those are not some of the proofs, then WHAT IS PROOF?
You presented lists of data. There is no proof whatsoever of cause and
effect, and somehow I don't think that you are ever going to get it.
Quote:
I would be EXTREMELY SURPRISED if you could show me one myope who
has acquired myopia whose prescription is over -7.00D without ever
wearing
glasses in his/her life!!
I probably would be hard pressed to find someone who expects to
function in the 21st century who is a 7 diopter myope and who has not
worn eyeglasses.
DrG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Neil Brooks |
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 5:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dr. Leukoma wrote:
Quote: dr.seagal@yahoo.com wrote:
If those are not some of the proofs, then WHAT IS PROOF?
You presented lists of data. There is no proof whatsoever of cause and
effect, and somehow I don't think that you are ever going to get it.
I would be EXTREMELY SURPRISED if you could show me one myope who
has acquired myopia whose prescription is over -7.00D without ever
wearing
glasses in his/her life!!
I probably would be hard pressed to find someone who expects to
function in the 21st century who is a 7 diopter myope and who has not
worn eyeglasses.
DrG
Hey, Dr. Seagal:
Can you show me one person with a size 14 foot who never had a smaller foot?
Damned shoe manufacturers!
Did you get any farther than high school? Seriously. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dan Abel |
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 5:23 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <1167597374.893276.162310@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>,
dr.seagal@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote: I would be EXTREMELY SURPRISED if you could show me one myope who
has acquired myopia whose prescription is over -7.00D without ever
wearing
glasses in his/her life!!
I would be EXTREMELY SURPRISED (Otis talk) if a -7D myope didn't wear
corrective lenses. It isn't fun to be without vision. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| otisbrown@pa.net |
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 6:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Conceit.txt
Dear Dr. Segal,
Subject: Fundamental-science (second-opinion) versus Retinula's
"Science"
Click on:
http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html
See what the (blue-tinted) eye does when you place a minus lens
on it.
I have heard so much bull s___ from these M.O. ODs -- that I
get tired of it. And worse, the un-employable Neil
Brooks only adds to it.
In my opinion, optometry must always fail, because of these
two inter-locking ignorances. There is no way you can change it.
Optometry supplies a magic pill that works in five minutes.
That is crude quick-fixing -- and must be understood that way.
BUT THAT IS NOT SCIENCE -- EVER.
Science is when you realize all of the above, and ask,
"...what do I actually measure -- in terms of refractive STATE.
Or how do all fundamental eyes behave. When you REMOVE the
misconceptions and ask "pure" scientific questions of this nature, it
becomes
clear (to engineers and scientists), that the "blue-tint"
animation of the natural eye is accurate and correct.
The BEST you can say about the minus is that it works
instantly. That would be OK if the HUMBLE OD would admit it.
It take MATURE INTELLECT to realize that a change in
wording changes the context of understanding.
So people HATE words, or the re-definition of the refractive
STATES of the natural eye? So what?
In the end a person who wakes-up to what he wants -- and
will devote STRONG EFFORT at the 20/70 level (-1.5 diopters) can
personally verify that his refractive STATE will SLOWLY move in a
positive direction, and his Snellen will clear to at least 20/40.
It takes a high quality person to do it -- and AVOID the
nutty people like Neil Brooks, and sad to say, the
Majority-opinion Retinula.
But let us review Retinula's majority opinion, versus
Steve Leung's second-opinion and the basis for it
in scientific fact.
-------------------------
Ret > How do you explain the statistical data that demonstrates
that plus lenses don't prevent progression.
Otis> This again, is Ret's office-fib. Do the studies "conflict"?
Yes they do. But the Oakley-Young study showed that a
"high", and strong plus STOPPED entry into myopia. So let
us just say that Ret's states is OPINION and ignores the
preventive second-opinion.
Ret > and that bifocals don't significantly reduce progression.
Otis> If you are SMART about this, the real indication is this.
Avoid the minus completely. With 20/50 -- most children
have no requirement for the minus. But AT THAT POINT, begin
the use of a plus that ENDS the near environment -- and is
comfortable for the child, and is "set" for the child's
HABITUAL reading distance. This would require and EDUCATED
parent to instruct the child in this "correct use" of the
plus. This process could PREVENT ENTRY into a negative
refractive STATE.
Ret > and that having myopes remove their glasses to read doesn't
significantly reduce progression
Otis> At per the above, no minus lens would be "removed", and the
child would not wear one. Rather, the child would be
wearing a "correct strength" plus, and the child and parent
would monitor the child's Snellen. As per the pilots who
have done it, VERY SLOWLY, the child's snellen will clear.
Ret > And that under-correcting myopia actually DOES statistically
increase the development of myopia?
Otis> Another false statement based on the flawed O'Leary-Chang
study. Again, call this the majority-opinion, and the
Oakley-Young study the second opinion.
Ret > What treatment do you propose for people to prevent myopia
that doesn't involve one of the above disproven approaches?
Otis> Find a second-opinion OD who will review the self-serving
ignorance and errors in Retinula assumption and distorted
"facts". Study the blue-tint eye, and the effect of a -3
diopter lens on the primate eye.
Otis> LEARN to make a choice for yourself if the face of this
conflict. Take action BEFORE your Snellen goes below 20/70.
Clear your Snellen and check your refractive STATE with a
low-cost minus. Keep up the effort until you read the 20/40
line or better. UNDERSTAND the reasons why Retinula is a
disaster for the human eye, and the nature of his ignorance
and arrogance.
Ret > Quit trying to be elusive and just tell us exactly what you
believe,
Otis> Click on the blue-tint dynamic eye -- and understand the
FACTS that support it. Learn to think for yourself, and if
you wish to clear your vision, use the plus to do it
correctly.
Ret > why you have chosen to believe that and to disregard the
science,
Otis> This is more Retinula's bull shit. The blue-tint concept is
accurate science. Ret is insisting that you ignore science,
and "accept" his stair-case myopia from a minus lens as a
consequences. This WILL have life-time consequences for
your child. There are profound reasons to distrust M.O.
Retinula on a scientific level.
Ret > and what the treatments are that you suggest?
Otis> In a "medical" sense -- no "treatment". In a scientific
sense, learn to think for yourself, understand the
preventive second-opinion, and use the method FOR YOUR OWN
PERSONAL ADVANTAGE.
Otis> Learn the conceits and ignorance of Retinula. Learn to take
care of your distant vision yourself, by clearing from 20/70
to 20/40, and avoid that minus lens unless absolutely
necessary.
Best,
Otis
dr.seagal@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote: retinula wrote:
How do you explain the statistical data that demonstrates that plus
lenses don't prevent progression. and that bifocals don't
significantly reduce progression. and that having myopes remove their
glasses to read doesn't significantly reduce progression. and that
undercorrecting myopia actually DOES statistically increase the
development of myopia?
Dear retinula,
I know why these studies failed. Do you need me to include simple
physics/math equation and drawing/diagram with explanation OR just
explanation alone is enough for you?
What treatment do you propose for people to prevent myopia that doesn't
involve one of the above disproven approaches?
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 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.
S.Seagal |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 1 of 5 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Jul 05, 2008 2:15 pm
|
|
