| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Medicine - Vision Forum » Vision Clearing from 20/140 with Ortho-K and Plus 3
Page 3 of 3 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3
|
| Author |
Message |
| CatmanX |
 Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 3:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Cluck, Cluck, Cluck......
Sounds like Cletis is feeding the chickens again. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dr. Leukoma |
| Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 4:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 11, 12:55 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
Otis said:
Quote: I will not use the work "emmetropic" any more
for EXACTLY that reason. To continue to
use words that have no meaning IS NOT
SCIENTIFIC, now is it?
ROFL.
DrG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| otisbrown@pa.net |
| Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 5:15 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Yes, Catman Grant.
This is all a big Joke to you, isn't it?
And the fact of 88 percent myopic students must
have you rolling on the floor in mirth.
http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/DynamicEye.html'
Think of all the new business this generates for you.
Yes, Catman, laugh it all off.
Otis
On Feb 11, 2:42 pm, "CatmanX" <drgr...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
Quote: Cluck, Cluck, Cluck......
Sounds like Cletis is feeding the chickens again. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Mike Tyner |
| Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<otisbrown@pa.net> wrote
Quote: Why not just state that the eye can
have negative or postive refractive STATES,
rather than use misleading and biased terms
that have no meaning as you now admit.
Which is better defined, "emmetropia" or "natural?"
Quote: I will not use the work "emmetropic" any more
for EXACTLY that reason. To continue to
use words that have no meaning IS NOT
SCIENTIFIC, now is it?
Let's say it's not "NATURAL."
-MT |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| CatmanX |
| Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Hey Cletis you moron!!!
Your link doesn't exist once again. Sort of like Leung, Oakley and
Young, Yves and all your other alias'.
Yes, I roll on the floor, laughing in mirth at your stupidity.
dr grant |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| otisbrown@pa.net |
| Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:12 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Hey Cat man,
Some people are computer-smart. You are obviously NOT.
http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/DynamicEye.html
There was a slight error in the post. Try the above link.
Not everything in this world is simplistic as you seem to
want it to be. Some things take a little "smarts" to figure out.
Otis
On Feb 12, 5:46 am, "CatmanX" <drgr...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
Quote: Hey Cletis you moron!!!
Your link doesn't exist once again. Sort of like Leung, Oakley and
Young, Yves and all your other alias'.
Yes, I roll on the floor, laughing in mirth at your stupidity.
dr grant |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Mike Tyner |
| Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:45 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<otisbrown@pa.net> wrote
Quote: Not everything in this world is simplistic as you seem to
want it to be. Some things take a little "smarts" to figure out.
So how many +3 hyperopes have become +1 hyperopes by removing their glasses?
And why aren't you wearing plus?
Hmm?
-MT |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Neil Brooks |
| Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 2:51 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 8, 1:54 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
Quote: Dear prevention-minded friends,
Here is some clarification about plus-prevention
ENABLED by Ortho-K.
DearYves,
[unverifiable, third-hand anecdote -- probably from fictitious person
-- snipped]
--- In i-see@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...> wrote:
Quote:
Dear Second-opinion friends,
We are here on i-see to learn of successful methods
others have used to clear their vision to 20/20. This
is a report on work in progress to achieve that goal.
Vision-clearing with the plus is indeed slow. But some
people have succeeded from the 20/70 level (about -1.25 dipoters)
to 20/20 with the plus alone.
Yves used the plus at 20/140 (about -2 diopters), and saw
little progress.
I'm always grateful for these unverifiable, third-hand anecdotes.
That said, however, here is a far more plausible explanation of the
results that we all see far too often around here:
The plus lens really isn't doing anything.
How do I back up that claim? Here. Look at the study of US Air
Force Academy cadets (n=994):
http://print.nap.edu/pdf/0309040817/pdf_image/33.pdf
You'll see that:
- 26% of the myopes did not shift or shifted HYPEROPIC
- 59% of the emmetropes did not shift or shifted HYPEROPIC
- 52% of the hyperopes did not shift or shifted HYPEROPIC
Something tells me that these percentages will pretty much mirror the
results of plus lens therapy.
In other words, here's a good control for you. It sure seems like
the plus lens hasn't had ANY impact on these numbers, meaning
that ... it hasn't been any more effective than -- what do YOU call
it? -- the "null hypothesis" (in this case: doing nothing).
Please address this ... fully, directly, and honestly. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| CatmanX |
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:15 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Hey, Ass-Clown,
I sort of assume that is you post a hyperlink, you post it correctly.
If you want people to read your crap, you should give them the correct
address, otherwise they will think you as stupid as I do.
Now as much as I condemn your racist attitude, calling asians monkeys
is going a bit too far. You can't compare 2 groups and expect the same
responses. Where is your study of school aged students that have never
been to school in Hing Kong so we can see what sort of shift is made
of these kids going to school. Anything else is irrelevant.
dr grant |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 3 of 3 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Nov 22, 2008 5:14 am
|
|