| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Medicine - Vision Forum » The Correct Answers
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Ms.Brainy |
 Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 11:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dear P.Clar,
Since Otis apparently missed your repeated questions to him, I took
the liberty to answer for him. I hope this will stop all your further
repetitions.
1. What is your professional training, or professional experience,
that allows you to give people advise on how to manage their vision
and eyecare problems? What Optometry, Ophthalmology, or Optics
training and/or experience do you have?
Answer: I am an engineer and as such I understand the design and
mechanism of the fundamental monkey's eye better than any optometrist
or ophthalmologist.
2. Why is it that many myopes who do not wear their minus lenses and
are therefore walking around with net plus refractive power in their
eye 24/7, do not become less myopic. This is optically the same as
wearing plus lenses all the time. Why is it that they don't revert to
emmetropia? Why is it that they oftentimes become even more myopic?
Your "theory" predicts the opposite!
Answer: You ask too many questions at once and I get confused. I
never advocated prevention by not wearing any lenses, as you suggest.
I am the "plus man". The fact that their myopia continues to increase
proves my point: They need the plus and cannot expect improvement or
even prevention by wearing nothing.
3. How come hyperopes (far-sighted people) who wear no correction do
not become more myopic (=less hyperopic) over time? They are
straining to see, in exactly the same way that others do who get very
close to their reading material. And they do it 24/7. And it's
optically the same as wearing glasses that are overminused. Your
theory predicts their refraction should change, but it doesn't.
Actually, they manifest even more hyperopia around age 40. How can
that be Otis? Unless your theory is wrong!
Answer: I do not treat hyperopia, which is not a scientific disorder
of the fundamental state of the dynamic eye.
4. How come, in a study published by Goss et al. (Am Jour Optom
Physiol Opt. Feb; 61(2):85-93, 1984) children who were intentionally
overminused did not become myopic any more than children who wore
their proper spectacle prescription? Your "theory" predicts the
opposite! You claim that the "wretched minus" would cause them to
plunge deeper into the despair of myopia. Yet it doesn't seem to
work
that way. Why?
Answer: The minus is bad bad bad for the natural eye of the monkey,
always bad. These monkeys are doomed to life of misery. The minus
lens should be banned by the FDA, except for passing the driving test
or watching porno movies.
5. How come, when myopic patients were undercorrected so as to leave
them slightly myopic even with their glasses on, they continued to
develop myopia, and actually at an accelerated rate (Chung K, Mohidin
N, O'Leary DJ. Undercorrection of myopia enhances rather than
inhibits
myopia progression. Vision Res. 2002, 42: 2555-9.) Your "theory"
predicts the opposite! Since they would be walking around 24/7 with
a
net plus refractive error, shouldn't they get better? Or at least
not
worse-- if your theory were correct!
Answer: Since they wear the minus their myopia increases -½ D every
year. If you understood the STATE of the dynamic natural eye you
wouldn't ask such silly questions. Or maybe it's the fundamental eye,
I need to check it out.
6. How come the Hong Kong Progressive Lens Myopia Control Study
(Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 2002;43:2852-2858)
concluded that using bifocal lenses on children has no effect on
myopia progression? Your "theory" predicts the opposite! Why is it
that science just keeps proving you wrong time and time again?
Answer: The rate of myopia among school monkeys and chicken in Honk
Kong is approaching 90%, which proves my purely scientific point:
They must start using the plus, the sooner the better.
P.Clar, I hope you are satisfied and please stop bugging me with more
questions. I have needy patients to take care of and have no time for
you and the rest of your established crowd. Now I must go wash my
hands because I discovered that germs can cause myopia in monkeys and
the establishment doesn't believe me, but you'll see that eventually I
shall prevail.
Best,
Otis, Engineer |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 6:24 am |
|
|
|
|
On Jun 5, 12:44 am, "Ms.Brainy" <mikabra...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: Dear P.Clar,
Since Otis apparently missed your repeated questions to him, I took
the liberty to answer for him. I hope this will stop all your further
repetitions.
1. What is your professional training, or professional experience,
that allows you to give people advise on how to manage their vision
and eyecare problems? What Optometry, Ophthalmology, or Optics
training and/or experience do you have?
Answer: I am an engineer and as such I understand the design and
mechanism of the fundamental monkey's eye better than any optometrist
or ophthalmologist.
2. Why is it that many myopes who do not wear their minus lenses and
are therefore walking around with net plus refractive power in their
eye 24/7, do not become less myopic. This is optically the same as
wearing plus lenses all the time. Why is it that they don't revert to
emmetropia? Why is it that they oftentimes become even more myopic?
Your "theory" predicts the opposite!
Answer: You ask too many questions at once and I get confused. I
never advocated prevention by not wearing any lenses, as you suggest.
I am the "plus man". The fact that their myopia continues to increase
proves my point: They need the plus and cannot expect improvement or
even prevention by wearing nothing.
3. How come hyperopes (far-sighted people) who wear no correction do
not become more myopic (=less hyperopic) over time? They are
straining to see, in exactly the same way that others do who get very
close to their reading material. And they do it 24/7. And it's
optically the same as wearing glasses that are overminused. Your
theory predicts their refraction should change, but it doesn't.
Actually, they manifest even more hyperopia around age 40. How can
that be Otis? Unless your theory is wrong!
Answer: I do not treat hyperopia, which is not a scientific disorder
of the fundamental state of the dynamic eye.
4. How come, in a study published by Goss et al. (Am Jour Optom
Physiol Opt. Feb; 61(2):85-93, 1984) children who were intentionally
overminused did not become myopic any more than children who wore
their proper spectacle prescription? Your "theory" predicts the
opposite! You claim that the "wretched minus" would cause them to
plunge deeper into the despair of myopia. Yet it doesn't seem to
work
that way. Why?
Answer: The minus is bad bad bad for the natural eye of the monkey,
always bad. These monkeys are doomed to life of misery. The minus
lens should be banned by the FDA, except for passing the driving test
or watching porno movies.
5. How come, when myopic patients were undercorrected so as to leave
them slightly myopic even with their glasses on, they continued to
develop myopia, and actually at an accelerated rate (Chung K, Mohidin
N, O'Leary DJ. Undercorrection of myopia enhances rather than
inhibits
myopia progression. Vision Res. 2002, 42: 2555-9.) Your "theory"
predicts the opposite! Since they would be walking around 24/7 with
a
net plus refractive error, shouldn't they get better? Or at least
not
worse-- if your theory were correct!
Answer: Since they wear the minus their myopia increases -½ D every
year. If you understood the STATE of the dynamic natural eye you
wouldn't ask such silly questions. Or maybe it's the fundamental eye,
I need to check it out.
6. How come the Hong Kong Progressive Lens Myopia Control Study
(Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 2002;43:2852-2858)
concluded that using bifocal lenses on children has no effect on
myopia progression? Your "theory" predicts the opposite! Why is it
that science just keeps proving you wrong time and time again?
Answer: The rate of myopia among school monkeys and chicken in Honk
Kong is approaching 90%, which proves my purely scientific point:
They must start using the plus, the sooner the better.
P.Clar, I hope you are satisfied and please stop bugging me with more
questions. I have needy patients to take care of and have no time for
you and the rest of your established crowd. Now I must go wash my
hands because I discovered that germs can cause myopia in monkeys and
the establishment doesn't believe me, but you'll see that eventually I
shall prevail.
Best,
Otis, Engineer
i like you Ms. Brainy. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| michael toulch |
| Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 8:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jun 5, 12:44 am, "Ms.Brainy" <mikabra...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: Dear P.Clar,
Since Otis apparently missed your repeated questions to him, I took
the liberty to answer for him. I hope this will stop all your further
repetitions.
1. What is your professional training, or professional experience,
that allows you to give people advise on how to manage their vision
and eyecare problems? What Optometry, Ophthalmology, or Optics
training and/or experience do you have?
Answer: I am an engineer and as such I understand the design and
mechanism of the fundamental monkey's eye better than any optometrist
or ophthalmologist.
2. Why is it that many myopes who do not wear their minus lenses and
are therefore walking around with net plus refractive power in their
eye 24/7, do not become less myopic. This is optically the same as
wearing plus lenses all the time. Why is it that they don't revert to
emmetropia? Why is it that they oftentimes become even more myopic?
Your "theory" predicts the opposite!
Answer: You ask too many questions at once and I get confused. I
never advocated prevention by not wearing any lenses, as you suggest.
I am the "plus man". The fact that their myopia continues to increase
proves my point: They need the plus and cannot expect improvement or
even prevention by wearing nothing.
3. How come hyperopes (far-sighted people) who wear no correction do
not become more myopic (=less hyperopic) over time? They are
straining to see, in exactly the same way that others do who get very
close to their reading material. And they do it 24/7. And it's
optically the same as wearing glasses that are overminused. Your
theory predicts their refraction should change, but it doesn't.
Actually, they manifest even more hyperopia around age 40. How can
that be Otis? Unless your theory is wrong!
Answer: I do not treat hyperopia, which is not a scientific disorder
of the fundamental state of the dynamic eye.
4. How come, in a study published by Goss et al. (Am Jour Optom
Physiol Opt. Feb; 61(2):85-93, 1984) children who were intentionally
overminused did not become myopic any more than children who wore
their proper spectacle prescription? Your "theory" predicts the
opposite! You claim that the "wretched minus" would cause them to
plunge deeper into the despair of myopia. Yet it doesn't seem to
work
that way. Why?
Answer: The minus is bad bad bad for the natural eye of the monkey,
always bad. These monkeys are doomed to life of misery. The minus
lens should be banned by the FDA, except for passing the driving test
or watching porno movies.
5. How come, when myopic patients were undercorrected so as to leave
them slightly myopic even with their glasses on, they continued to
develop myopia, and actually at an accelerated rate (Chung K, Mohidin
N, O'Leary DJ. Undercorrection of myopia enhances rather than
inhibits
myopia progression. Vision Res. 2002, 42: 2555-9.) Your "theory"
predicts the opposite! Since they would be walking around 24/7 with
a
net plus refractive error, shouldn't they get better? Or at least
not
worse-- if your theory were correct!
Answer: Since they wear the minus their myopia increases -½ D every
year. If you understood the STATE of the dynamic natural eye you
wouldn't ask such silly questions. Or maybe it's the fundamental eye,
I need to check it out.
6. How come the Hong Kong Progressive Lens Myopia Control Study
(Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 2002;43:2852-2858)
concluded that using bifocal lenses on children has no effect on
myopia progression? Your "theory" predicts the opposite! Why is it
that science just keeps proving you wrong time and time again?
Answer: The rate of myopia among school monkeys and chicken in Honk
Kong is approaching 90%, which proves my purely scientific point:
They must start using the plus, the sooner the better.
P.Clar, I hope you are satisfied and please stop bugging me with more
questions. I have needy patients to take care of and have no time for
you and the rest of your established crowd. Now I must go wash my
hands because I discovered that germs can cause myopia in monkeys and
the establishment doesn't believe me, but you'll see that eventually I
shall prevail.
Best,
Otis, Engineer
pretty clear. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Neil Brooks |
| Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 8:42 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 11:24:00 -0000, p.clarkii@gmail.com wrote:
Quote: i like you Ms. Brainy.
Ditto. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| otisbrown@pa.net |
| Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 12:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dear Brainy,
You are wonderful.
But please sign "Brainy", and not my name.
Also, I will post the "Printer's Son", which I judge is your
"attitude" and sets the true limit for scientific prevention of
a negative refractive STATE for the natural eye.
The publics "attitude" in fact defines the "limit" of
majority-opinion optometry. It would be nice if you
understood THAT issue.
Further no one can do your "thinking" for you.
If you LOVE that minus lens in five minutes -- than
have at it. It is certainly no skin off my nose.
Best,
Otis Brown
On Jun 5, 12:44 am, "Ms.Brainy" <mikabra...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: Dear P.Clar,
Since Otis apparently missed your repeated questions to him, I took
the liberty to answer for him. I hope this will stop all your further
repetitions.
1. What is your professional training, or professional experience,
that allows you to give people advise on how to manage their vision
and eyecare problems? What Optometry, Ophthalmology, or Optics
training and/or experience do you have?
Answer: I am an engineer and as such I understand the design and
mechanism of the fundamental monkey's eye better than any optometrist
or ophthalmologist.
2. Why is it that many myopes who do not wear their minus lenses and
are therefore walking around with net plus refractive power in their
eye 24/7, do not become less myopic. This is optically the same as
wearing plus lenses all the time. Why is it that they don't revert to
emmetropia? Why is it that they oftentimes become even more myopic?
Your "theory" predicts the opposite!
Answer: You ask too many questions at once and I get confused. I
never advocated prevention by not wearing any lenses, as you suggest.
I am the "plus man". The fact that their myopia continues to increase
proves my point: They need the plus and cannot expect improvement or
even prevention by wearing nothing.
3. How come hyperopes (far-sighted people) who wear no correction do
not become more myopic (=less hyperopic) over time? They are
straining to see, in exactly the same way that others do who get very
close to their reading material. And they do it 24/7. And it's
optically the same as wearing glasses that are overminused. Your
theory predicts their refraction should change, but it doesn't.
Actually, they manifest even more hyperopia around age 40. How can
that be Otis? Unless your theory is wrong!
Answer: I do not treat hyperopia, which is not a scientific disorder
of the fundamental state of the dynamic eye.
4. How come, in a study published by Goss et al. (Am Jour Optom
Physiol Opt. Feb; 61(2):85-93, 1984) children who were intentionally
overminused did not become myopic any more than children who wore
their proper spectacle prescription? Your "theory" predicts the
opposite! You claim that the "wretched minus" would cause them to
plunge deeper into the despair of myopia. Yet it doesn't seem to
work
that way. Why?
Answer: The minus is bad bad bad for the natural eye of the monkey,
always bad. These monkeys are doomed to life of misery. The minus
lens should be banned by the FDA, except for passing the driving test
or watching porno movies.
5. How come, when myopic patients were undercorrected so as to leave
them slightly myopic even with their glasses on, they continued to
develop myopia, and actually at an accelerated rate (Chung K, Mohidin
N, O'Leary DJ. Undercorrection of myopia enhances rather than
inhibits
myopia progression. Vision Res. 2002, 42: 2555-9.) Your "theory"
predicts the opposite! Since they would be walking around 24/7 with
a
net plus refractive error, shouldn't they get better? Or at least
not
worse-- if your theory were correct!
Answer: Since they wear the minus their myopia increases -½ D every
year. If you understood the STATE of the dynamic natural eye you
wouldn't ask such silly questions. Or maybe it's the fundamental eye,
I need to check it out.
6. How come the Hong Kong Progressive Lens Myopia Control Study
(Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 2002;43:2852-2858)
concluded that using bifocal lenses on children has no effect on
myopia progression? Your "theory" predicts the opposite! Why is it
that science just keeps proving you wrong time and time again?
Answer: The rate of myopia among school monkeys and chicken in Honk
Kong is approaching 90%, which proves my purely scientific point:
They must start using the plus, the sooner the better.
P.Clar, I hope you are satisfied and please stop bugging me with more
questions. I have needy patients to take care of and have no time for
you and the rest of your established crowd. Now I must go wash my
hands because I discovered that germs can cause myopia in monkeys and
the establishment doesn't believe me, but you'll see that eventually I
shall prevail.
Best,
Otis, Engineer |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Neil Brooks |
| Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 12:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 10:02:57 -0700, "otisbrown@pa.net"
<otisbrown@pa.net> wrote:
Quote: Dear Brainy,
You are wonderful.
But please sign "Brainy", and not my name.
Your sense of humor is about on a par with your logic and rational
thinking: poor.
Quote: Also, I will post the "Printer's Son",
Oh, God help us all. Not that tired old thing again. Why waste the
bandwidth, Uncle Otie? Wouldn't it be MORE productive to answer my
(or PClark's) questions instead??
Quote: which I judge is your
"attitude" and sets the true limit for scientific prevention of
a negative refractive STATE for the natural eye.
Lemme' see if I have this right: Ms. Brainy's "attitude" "sets the
true limit for scientific prevention of a negative refractive STATE
for the natural eye????"
You're flat-a$$ whacked, Otis.
Quote: The publics "attitude" in fact defines the "limit" of
majority-opinion optometry. It would be nice if you
understood THAT issue.
Maybe issues like .... why your niece, Joy Benson, who never wore the
minus, but DID wear the plus is A MYOPE WITH A RESTRICTED DRIVER'S
LICENSE ... actually "define the 'limit'."
Quote: Further no one can do your "thinking" for you.
Least of all Otis.
Quote: If you LOVE that minus lens in five minutes -- than
have at it. It is certainly no skin off my nose.
We've all seen your picture. Please don't dwell on the details of
your face, Otis. People have to eat. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jan |
| Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:00 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Ms.Brainy schreef:
Quote: Dear P.Clar,
Since Otis apparently missed your repeated questions to him, I took
the liberty to answer for him. I hope this will stop all your further
repetitions.
Useless and just "corn on the mill" (Dutch expression) to Otis.
"Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam" (Marcus Porcius Cato)
Instead of "Carthaginem" feel free to read "the wrong assumption by Otis
how to prevent myopia "
Jan (normally Dutch spoken, |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Mike Tyner |
| Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<otisbrown@pa.net> wrote
Quote: The publics "attitude" in fact defines the "limit" of
majority-opinion optometry. It would be nice if you
understood THAT issue.
What would be nice is if you'd convince ophthalmologists, pediatricians and
academic vision scientists that your prevention works. Do that, and I
promise optometry will play along.
Quote: If you LOVE that minus lens in five minutes -- than
have at it. It is certainly no skin off my nose.
I'm pretty sure Brainy is past the point of worrying that her glasses will
make her nearsighted.
I'm also pretty sure you don't understand anything I write.
-MT |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:22 pm |
|
|
|
|
On Jun 5, 1:02 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
Quote: Dear Brainy,
You are wonderful.
But please sign "Brainy", and not my name.
Also, I will post the "Printer's Son", which I judge is your
"attitude" and sets the true limit for scientific prevention of
a negative refractive STATE for the natural eye.
The publics "attitude" in fact defines the "limit" of
majority-opinion optometry. It would be nice if you
understood THAT issue.
Further no one can do your "thinking" for you.
If you LOVE that minus lens in five minutes -- than
have at it. It is certainly no skin off my nose.
Best,
Otis Brown
On Jun 5, 12:44 am, "Ms.Brainy" <mikabra...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear P.Clar,
Since Otis apparently missed your repeated questions to him, I took
the liberty to answer for him. I hope this will stop all your further
repetitions.
1. What is your professional training, or professional experience,
that allows you to give people advise on how to manage their vision
and eyecare problems? What Optometry, Ophthalmology, or Optics
training and/or experience do you have?
Answer: I am an engineer and as such I understand the design and
mechanism of the fundamental monkey's eye better than any optometrist
or ophthalmologist.
2. Why is it that many myopes who do not wear their minus lenses and
are therefore walking around with net plus refractive power in their
eye 24/7, do not become less myopic. This is optically the same as
wearing plus lenses all the time. Why is it that they don't revert to
emmetropia? Why is it that they oftentimes become even more myopic?
Your "theory" predicts the opposite!
Answer: You ask too many questions at once and I get confused. I
never advocated prevention by not wearing any lenses, as you suggest.
I am the "plus man". The fact that their myopia continues to increase
proves my point: They need the plus and cannot expect improvement or
even prevention by wearing nothing.
3. How come hyperopes (far-sighted people) who wear no correction do
not become more myopic (=less hyperopic) over time? They are
straining to see, in exactly the same way that others do who get very
close to their reading material. And they do it 24/7. And it's
optically the same as wearing glasses that are overminused. Your
theory predicts their refraction should change, but it doesn't.
Actually, they manifest even more hyperopia around age 40. How can
that be Otis? Unless your theory is wrong!
Answer: I do not treat hyperopia, which is not a scientific disorder
of the fundamental state of the dynamic eye.
4. How come, in a study published by Goss et al. (Am Jour Optom
Physiol Opt. Feb; 61(2):85-93, 1984) children who were intentionally
overminused did not become myopic any more than children who wore
their proper spectacle prescription? Your "theory" predicts the
opposite! You claim that the "wretched minus" would cause them to
plunge deeper into the despair of myopia. Yet it doesn't seem to
work
that way. Why?
Answer: The minus is bad bad bad for the natural eye of the monkey,
always bad. These monkeys are doomed to life of misery. The minus
lens should be banned by the FDA, except for passing the driving test
or watching porno movies.
5. How come, when myopic patients were undercorrected so as to leave
them slightly myopic even with their glasses on, they continued to
develop myopia, and actually at an accelerated rate (Chung K, Mohidin
N, O'Leary DJ. Undercorrection of myopia enhances rather than
inhibits
myopia progression. Vision Res. 2002, 42: 2555-9.) Your "theory"
predicts the opposite! Since they would be walking around 24/7 with
a
net plus refractive error, shouldn't they get better? Or at least
not
worse-- if your theory were correct!
Answer: Since they wear the minus their myopia increases -½ D every
year. If you understood the STATE of the dynamic natural eye you
wouldn't ask such silly questions. Or maybe it's the fundamental eye,
I need to check it out.
6. How come the Hong Kong Progressive Lens Myopia Control Study
(Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 2002;43:2852-2858)
concluded that using bifocal lenses on children has no effect on
myopia progression? Your "theory" predicts the opposite! Why is it
that science just keeps proving you wrong time and time again?
Answer: The rate of myopia among school monkeys and chicken in Honk
Kong is approaching 90%, which proves my purely scientific point:
They must start using the plus, the sooner the better.
P.Clar, I hope you are satisfied and please stop bugging me with more
questions. I have needy patients to take care of and have no time for
you and the rest of your established crowd. Now I must go wash my
hands because I discovered that germs can cause myopia in monkeys and
the establishment doesn't believe me, but you'll see that eventually I
shall prevail.
Best,
Otis, Engineer
since you are nearby and watching why not try to address the open
questions? don't you see that by ignoring them you appear to be an
idiot and it does your point of view a disservice. it makes you look
like you don't have a clue what's going on. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jan |
| Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
otisbrown@pa.net schreef:
Quote: Also, I will post the "Printer's Son", which I judge is your
"attitude" and sets the true limit for scientific prevention of
a negative refractive STATE for the natural eye.
Not that old crab again Otis, in earlier days men are walking in front
of an automobile with a red flag, your lecture is as old.
Your second opinion crab is only based on your silly idea it should work.
Not proven scientifically and certainly not based on how myopia is build up.
Let's face it Otis, you, not having the knowledge and not working or
prescribing in this beautiful field called eyecare should keep your
mouth shut until you proof scientifically the majority of real eyecare
specialist are wrong.
Till then, oracle of Iblind.
"Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam" (Marcus Porcius Cato)
Instead of "Carthaginem" feel free to read "the wrong assumption by Otis
how to prevent myopia "
Jan (normally Dutch spoken, |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| otisbrown@pa.net |
| Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 9:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Re: Questions in 10 minutes.
Dear "Motivated" reader,
Subject: What I "wondered" about when I was young.
Re: Brainy's endless "questions".
I wondered why no OD would even DISCUSS plus prevention,
or Bates-prevention. Why was that?
Sorry to say, most people are either "dense", or
truly have no interest in clearing their vision
by:
1. Reading their own Snellen.
2. Having some faith in themselves to try prevention.
3. Are impressed by Brainy's "arguments".
I think you should take due caution about your eyes.
I know I would. I have suggested a "medical" exam
to look for MEDICAL issues. But if a -1 diopter
lens will clear your Snellen from 20/70 to 20/20, then
you do not have a medical problem.
I never had a "chance". I do not know what
my father would have done, but this is an
example of how "public ignorance" shuts down
ANY PREVENTION MINDED OD. It is this
"attitude" that prevents prevention.
This convinced me that NO OD CAN HELP US,
and my conclusion that if you truly want to
keep your distant vision clear -- you must
have the fortitude to do it yourself.
I do not think it as easy as Dr. Colgate said, but
I do think it is both wise and possible -- provided
you wise-up and have the motivation for it.
How any OD could help anyone (like "Brainy") with plus-prevention
is beyond me.
Here is Raphaelson's comment on the public's
expectation.
++++++++++++++
WHY ISN'T THE PREVENTATIVE APPROACH OFFERED?
With this type of scientific understanding of the eye's behavior, you
would think that the insightful and motivated optometrist or
ophthalmologist could introduce a practical and effective method of
solution. Dr. Jacob Raphaelson did exactly that in the following
example -- with the following result:
THE PRINTER'S SON
"It was the year 1904 that I met a mother at a social lodge meeting.
She told me about her son's trouble with his eyes in school. I gave
her my card and told her to bring him to my office and I would fit
him with a pair of spectacles.
"She said that she had no money at the time and that her husband was
a printer working in another city. She did not expect him home for
the next six weeks. I told her all this would not matter, that she
should bring the boy over and I would fit him with a pair of
spectacles. I told her that she could pay for them when her husband
returned home.
"She brought the boy in and I examined his eyes. I found that his
vision for distance was poor. It was less than 20/40. I made him a
pair of plus 1.00 diopter spectacles. She was to pay me when her
husband came back home.
"In about six weeks she came back and returned the glasses to me. She
stated that her husband was provoked with her for getting the
glasses. He had tried the boy's eyes with different prints, far and
near, and had found him to have perfect vision with his naked eyes.
In fact, she said, the boy could see even better without the glasses
than with them.
"I was surprised that the plus lens could produce recovery that
quickly. I could hardly believe this story. I persuaded the mother to
bring the boy back to let me check to see if he could really see well
with his naked eyes. She again brought the boy in and I checked his
vision. I found that the father was indeed right. The boy had good
eyes, with 20/20 vision and better.
"I was in a dilemma. I did not have the nerve to say anything to the
mother. I just let her go. How was I to prove that the boy had poor
vision before he received his glasses? And who would believe that
vision could be restored by just wearing a pair of plus 1.00 glasses
for a few weeks?
"My experience with the printer's son aroused my inborn tendency for
exploration. It gave me an incentive to try to do special work on
children's eyes and on vision restoration. It also enticed me to
investigate myopic (nearsighted) eyes because I was myself
nearsighted.
"On the other hand, this experience was a warning to be cautious in
doing such work. For selling spectacles to persons who, supposedly,
did not need them was almost a crime. And the fitting of glasses
without the advice or consent of a medical doctor to unhealthy or
diseased eyes, or even to an unhealthy person who might need or be
under medical attention, was, and is now, and encroachment on the
medical profession.
"To shield myself against possible enmity and involvement, I took the
following precautions: First, I quit using the title 'doctor' in any
form, in print or verbally. I was to be known as a spectacle fitter
and nothing more. Second, I charged a reasonable price for the
spectacles I sold but nothing extra for any special work or relief I
gave. I did not advertise about this special work. I just did it as a
matter of routine whenever or wherever I was given the opportunity.
"Thus in 1904 I became an independent researcher on the relationship
of the eye's behavior to spectacles, vision, and health. I have kept
it up, and will continue to do this work as long as I continue to
have the incentive and capability.
"Who would believe it? Who would believe that by just wearing a pair
of plus one (+1.00) glasses for a few weeks, that normal vision to
the naked eye could be restored to children whose eyes have a
negative focal state? This was true in 1904, and it is also true now,
in this decade of 1950." (It continues to be true in this decade of
1990 -- Otis Brown)
It is of course true that most people want to sit on their
keister and have someone do EVERYTHING for them,
including their THINKING.
But, Brainy, since you love the minus lens and the
impressive sharpness is produces -- then have at it.
But then never turn back, and never rue the consequences.
You can never help a person -- until the person first
wakes up to the need to help himself.
And that is truly the point of supporting Steve Leung at:
www.chinamyopia.org
as the preventive second-opinion.
Otis
++++++++++++++++
On Jun 5, 12:44 am, "Ms.Brainy" <mikabra...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: Dear P.Clar,
Since Otis apparently missed your repeated questions to him, I took
the liberty to answer for him. I hope this will stop all your further
repetitions.
1. What is your professional training, or professional experience,
that allows you to give people advise on how to manage their vision
and eyecare problems? What Optometry, Ophthalmology, or Optics
training and/or experience do you have?
Answer: I am an engineer and as such I understand the design and
mechanism of the fundamental monkey's eye better than any optometrist
or ophthalmologist.
2. Why is it that many myopes who do not wear their minus lenses and
are therefore walking around with net plus refractive power in their
eye 24/7, do not become less myopic. This is optically the same as
wearing plus lenses all the time. Why is it that they don't revert to
emmetropia? Why is it that they oftentimes become even more myopic?
Your "theory" predicts the opposite!
Answer: You ask too many questions at once and I get confused. I
never advocated prevention by not wearing any lenses, as you suggest.
I am the "plus man". The fact that their myopia continues to increase
proves my point: They need the plus and cannot expect improvement or
even prevention by wearing nothing.
3. How come hyperopes (far-sighted people) who wear no correction do
not become more myopic (=less hyperopic) over time? They are
straining to see, in exactly the same way that others do who get very
close to their reading material. And they do it 24/7. And it's
optically the same as wearing glasses that are overminused. Your
theory predicts their refraction should change, but it doesn't.
Actually, they manifest even more hyperopia around age 40. How can
that be Otis? Unless your theory is wrong!
Answer: I do not treat hyperopia, which is not a scientific disorder
of the fundamental state of the dynamic eye.
4. How come, in a study published by Goss et al. (Am Jour Optom
Physiol Opt. Feb; 61(2):85-93, 1984) children who were intentionally
overminused did not become myopic any more than children who wore
their proper spectacle prescription? Your "theory" predicts the
opposite! You claim that the "wretched minus" would cause them to
plunge deeper into the despair of myopia. Yet it doesn't seem to
work
that way. Why?
Answer: The minus is bad bad bad for the natural eye of the monkey,
always bad. These monkeys are doomed to life of misery. The minus
lens should be banned by the FDA, except for passing the driving test
or watching porno movies.
5. How come, when myopic patients were undercorrected so as to leave
them slightly myopic even with their glasses on, they continued to
develop myopia, and actually at an accelerated rate (Chung K, Mohidin
N, O'Leary DJ. Undercorrection of myopia enhances rather than
inhibits
myopia progression. Vision Res. 2002, 42: 2555-9.) Your "theory"
predicts the opposite! Since they would be walking around 24/7 with
a
net plus refractive error, shouldn't they get better? Or at least
not
worse-- if your theory were correct!
Answer: Since they wear the minus their myopia increases -½ D every
year. If you understood the STATE of the dynamic natural eye you
wouldn't ask such silly questions. Or maybe it's the fundamental eye,
I need to check it out.
6. How come the Hong Kong Progressive Lens Myopia Control Study
(Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 2002;43:2852-2858)
concluded that using bifocal lenses on children has no effect on
myopia progression? Your "theory" predicts the opposite! Why is it
that science just keeps proving you wrong time and time again?
Answer: The rate of myopia among school monkeys and chicken in Honk
Kong is approaching 90%, which proves my purely scientific point:
They must start using the plus, the sooner the better.
P.Clar, I hope you are satisfied and please stop bugging me with more
questions. I have needy patients to take care of and have no time for
you and the rest of your established crowd. Now I must go wash my
hands because I discovered that germs can cause myopia in monkeys and
the establishment doesn't believe me, but you'll see that eventually I
shall prevail.
Best,
Otis, Engineer |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| otisbrown@pa.net |
| Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:13 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dear Brainy,
Subject: Graphics of Dr. Raphaelson's thesis
Since you do not understand the "words" describing
the natural eye's behavior, when you place
a strong minus lens on it -- perhaps Soon's
"graphics" of stair-case myopia will improve
your comprehension of this issue. See:
http://www.geocities.com/soonicansee/
But there is no help for your intellectual blindness,
even with your title of "Brainy".
Please enjoy this pleasant discussion of science,
scientific proof, and alternatives (before the minus)
like Bates, Plus, Raphaelson, and public ignorance.
Enjoy,
Otis |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:46 pm |
|
|
|
|
On Jun 5, 10:58 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
Quote: Re: Questions in 10 minutes.
Dear "Motivated" reader,
Subject: What I "wondered" about when I was young.
Re: Brainy's endless "questions".
you are really mentally defective aren't you Otis.
who asked you, or who even cares, what you wondered about when you
were young. pornography and self-gratification i'm sure!
and your slow-moving brain believes it was Ms. Brainy who asked you
the "endless questions." no matter, you are too much of a wus to
answer.
for some reason you instead cut and paste some stupid Raphaelson/
Printer's Son story that seems to give you wet dreams at night. how
boring and irrelevant. why not read some currrent research articles
relating to myopia development instead?
So once again, I ask you these questions in a more simplified (=easier
for you to comprehend) form:
1. what training or experience do you have that allows you to
recommend treatments to people?
2. how come uncorrected myopes who never wear the wretched minus stay
myopic or get more myopic?
3. how come uncorrected hyperopes, who have to strain as if they are
wearing strong minus lenses all the time, do not develop myopia (or at
least lessen their farsightedness) over time?
4. how come studies where humans (not monkeys or chickens) are
intentionally overminused prove that their prescriptions do not
develop accelerated myopia as you claim? why do you come up with a
concept of staircase myopia when real statistical data in humans shows
it doesn't happen (as if you care about facts).
5. how come undercorrecting myopes so that they don't need to
accommodate as much when they read actually INCREASES their myopia
development?
6. how come the Hong Kong study group concludes that bifocals do not
reduce myopia progression?
Was that shorter version of the questions easier for you to
comprehend? Why do you avoid direct questions and instead post old
prose about Raphaelson or Sterling Colgate? Why can't you talk
directly about a topic?
The above questions really cut to the core of your theory of myopia
prevention. If you cannot answer them, or will not answer them, then
your credibility is reduced (even further). as you know, people are
watching and can clearly recognize your weakness. See how they laugh
and make fun of you. Either stand up and address the critical
foundations of your theory or go away to your little far-flung
alternative forum where people burn incense and sit in the lotus
position while trying to relax-away their refractive errors.
I didn't know this is what engineers did. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:49 pm |
|
|
|
|
Quote: 1. Reading their own Snellen.
how does this prevent myopia? seems more likely that if facilitates
memorization of the acuity chart and taint objective measurements/
Quote: 2. Having some faith in themselves to try prevention.
apparently "faith" is all you can offer them since the data clearly
demonstrates that prevention doesn't work. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ms.Brainy |
| Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jun 5, 8:13 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
Quote: Dear Brainy,
Subject: Graphics of Dr. Raphaelson's thesis
Since you do not understand the "words" describing
the natural eye's behavior, when you place
a strong minus lens on it -- perhaps Soon's
"graphics" of stair-case myopia will improve
your comprehension of this issue. See:
http://www.geocities.com/soonicansee/
But there is no help for your intellectual blindness,
even with your title of "Brainy".
Please enjoy this pleasant discussion of science,
scientific proof, and alternatives (before the minus)
like Bates, Plus, Raphaelson, and public ignorance.
Enjoy,
Otis
Otis My Dear,
I have never been rude to you like others. I never called you names.
I was always respectful and sweet like honey, but now you are leaving
me no choice. I must say it : YOU ARE DENSE, VERY DENSE!
I did NOT ask you those endless questions -- I ANSWERED them on your
behalf, because you would not do it yourself!
Actually I always made sure that my sarcasm remained so subtle that
despite the fact that everybody else could see it as sarcasm -- you
wouldn't. This is because I am kind and sweet by nature. Is this how
you thank me? Is this your second opinion?
I was thinking of answering for you Neil Brooks' questions as well,
but now, realizing that you do not appreciate my effort to do the hard
work that you would not do yourself, I am not so sure you deserve my
help.
BTW Otis, Do you think that the plus can help my bad eye (currently
20/400, after a macular hole, retinal detachment and presently very
thick pre-surgery cataract)? Should I seek a second opinion? Would
you say that my eye is still a dynamic fundamental eye?
Best,
Brainy |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Oct 12, 2008 1:14 am
|
|