| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Medicine - Vision Forum » voodoo.med
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Ms.Brainy |
 Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 11:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| otisbrown@pa.net |
| Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 8:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dear Ms.Brainy,
I thought the same thing about Dr. Bates and other
second-opinion methods.
But, since Bates was sincere, and attempting to
do a good job, I started to research these second-opinions.
These preventive methods depend on the person himself,
and can not be "prescribed", and are not "medical"
in nature as far as I am concerned.
The average doctor has no time at all to discuss
these issues with you. And they do depend
on the insight of the person himself (like
Dr. Stirling Colgate).
Stirling knew what the Snellen was, and what
his goal had to be. He made a commitment to
do it, and rejected the minus lens out-of-hand.
Once the person has the correct conceptualization,
and is prepared to work the issue under his own
WISE control, the success is at least possible.
But you must truly value your distant vision
if you are going to use these preventive measures.
Just one man's opinion.
Otis
On Jun 11, 12:42 am, "Ms.Brainy" <mikabra...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: This usenet forum is contaminated occassionally by voodoo advice. But
the (free) eye exercizes or the plus theory offered here are nothing
compared to other types of faith healing and voodoo medicine.
Laughter is perhaps a very good medicine, certainly helps me overcome
the misery of my eye problems. Read the following article and enjoy!http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/columnists/story.html?id=a6ffc1... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Neil Brooks |
| Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 8:30 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jun 11, 6:16 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
[snip]
Come on.
Fess up, Uncle Otie.
Are you, indeed, "impaired?"
I might modify my behavior if you were honest. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ms.Brainy |
| Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 8:43 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jun 11, 6:30 pm, Neil Brooks <neil0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote: On Jun 11, 6:16 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
[snip]
Come on.
Fess up, Uncle Otie.
Are you, indeed, "impaired?"
I might modify my behavior if you were honest.
Dear Otis,
Please forgive Neil for not seeing what you and I see so clearly. He
just does not realize that you are honestly impaired.
Ms. Brainy,
your friend and protector |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 9:48 pm |
|
|
|
|
On Jun 11, 9:16 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
Quote: Dear Ms.Brainy,
These preventive methods depend on the person himself,
and can not be "prescribed", and are not "medical"
in nature as far as I am concerned.
so these preventive methods have no basis in medical science is what
you are saying. I guess then indeed they do constitute voodoo.med as
this thread is entitled. good job otis. didn't hijack this thread.
its all about voodoo and thats all about what your prevention scheme.
Quote: Stirling knew what the Snellen was, and what
his goal had to be. He made a commitment to
do it, and rejected the minus lens out-of-hand.
so he rejected it without any scientific basis to do so. I have never
read any article by stirling colgate, or anyone for that matter, that
presents scientific data that biconvex lenses cause human myopia. yet
for some reason you attest to it. faith, voodoo, whatever!
Quote:
Once the person has the correct conceptualization,
and is prepared to work the issue under his own
WISE control, the success is at least possible.
guess it wasn't possible for your niece Joy. why? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| otisbrown@pa.net |
| Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:30 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dear Ms. Brainy,
Subject: Depends on how you "look" at it.
Anyone who proposes fundamental change in understanding,
in science, in the arts, receives a storm of protest.
Vincent Van Gough, Matiese, and the like.
Indeed Max Pank, Galileo, Copernicus and Kepler also encountered the
same explosive objection.
For instance, the word "EARTH" meant solid, massive,
something that could NEVER MOVE AT ALL. You
would have to be crazy to suggest that the earth
moved, and the ephermal stars did not move.
Yet, Galileo said that they did -- and the church (of the
day) told him that the EARTH could not possibly
be move, so he HAD TO BE WRONG. Result?
Church 1
Galileo 0
It took till 1895 before the Church gave up, and
agreed that the earth moved.
Today we propose that a population of natural
eye's change their refractive STATE when you
place a -3 diopter lens on them. The result
is that they naturally change their refractive
STATE by -2 diotpers in less than six months.
But that is the same as insisting that the
earth moves.
And by CLASSIC DEFINITION, the natural eye
can NEVER change its refractive STATE -- EVER!!!
And that is what the real scientific argument is about.
There is no arbument about "medical issues" here, only
respect for what we actually measure about the dynamic
behavior of a population of natural eyes.
Best,
Otis
On Jun 11, 9:43 pm, "Ms.Brainy" <mikabra...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: On Jun 11, 6:30 pm, Neil Brooks <neil0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jun 11, 6:16 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
[snip]
Come on.
Fess up, Uncle Otie.
Are you, indeed, "impaired?"
I might modify my behavior if you were honest.
Dear Otis,
Please forgive Neil for not seeing what you and I see so clearly. He
just does not realize that you are honestly impaired.
Ms. Brainy,
your friend and protector |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Neil Brooks |
| Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jun 11, 8:30 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
[snip]
So ... that's a yes. You ARE mentally ill? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ms.Brainy |
| Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:56 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jun 11, 8:34 pm, Neil Brooks <neil0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote: On Jun 11, 8:30 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
[snip]
So ... that's a yes. You ARE mentally ill?
Shame on you Neil. You insult Copernicus.
Ms. Brainy
Protector of Otis & Galileo |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Odis |
| Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 4:36 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
| what does it means voodoo pls thx!! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Revival |
| Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 4:37 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Hello!!
what it does means voodoo pls |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Revival |
| Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 4:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Hello Ms Brainy!!
what it does means voodoo pls
thank,you |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 6:12 am |
|
|
|
|
On Jun 11, 11:30 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
Quote: Dear Ms. Brainy,
Subject: Depends on how you "look" at it.
Anyone who proposes fundamental change in understanding,
in science, in the arts, receives a storm of protest.
Vincent Van Gough, Matiese, and the like.
Indeed Max Pank, Galileo, Copernicus and Kepler also encountered the
same explosive objection.
ah yes. you view yourself in the same category as these people don't
you otis? a poor misunderstood tragic figure who knows whats right
and fights on in the face of criticism (and without supporting
evidence) because you fight "the good fight". someday history will
put the name of otis brown right up there with max plank, kepler, and
van gogh. BOY ARE YOU A SICK OLD DILLUSIONAL MAN. the only
historical note for you will be that your ex-friends and family will
mumble at your funeral that you became a crank and/or mentally-
disturbed in your latter years. otis-- you are wrong. you are
nothing but a stubborn old crank that other people laugh about. kind
of sad really.
were you ever anything else? were you ever really an engineer? what
school did you graduate from and in what year? I know a lot of
engineers but none of them would hold onto a belief that is so
obviously wrong in the face of the pile of scientific evidence and
expert opinion that you will. and if they did, they would really have
a solid argument supporting them-- not just a story about raphaelson,
and an opinion from stirling colgate, and some old data on monkeys who
were tortured with excessive-powered lenses sutured on their eyes.
Quote:
For instance, the word "EARTH" meant solid, massive,
something that could NEVER MOVE AT ALL. You
would have to be crazy to suggest that the earth
moved, and the ephermal stars did not move.
Yet, Galileo said that they did -- and the church (of the
day) told him that the EARTH could not possibly
be move, so he HAD TO BE WRONG. Result?
an yes, you think that one day otis brown will be known right up
their alongside the name of galileo. wow are you sick.
Quote:
And by CLASSIC DEFINITION, the natural eye
can NEVER change its refractive STATE -- EVER!!!
of course the eye changes its resting refractive state. no one except
you have ever claimed that the "primary opinion" scientists and
clinicians say that it doesn't. otis, why do you keep trying to put
words in peoples mouths.
Quote: There is no arbument about "medical issues" here, only
respect for what we actually measure about the dynamic
behavior of a population of natural eyes.
well then, once AGAIN otis, please present the scientific evidence in
humans that this occurs. others here have presented you scientific
data and statistical analysis that shows the excessive minus power
applied to humans has no effect. and why do the bifocal studies and
undercorrection studies show essentially no effect on refractive
state? were is your human data (not monkeys or chickens) and the
statistical analysis versus controls? don't run away now-- show it to
us or get it or shut up. galileo and kepler DID have data supporting
them, its just that others choose not to believe it or even listen to
it. you have nothing but crack-pot notions.
otis, does your family think you are kind of a crack pot? i'm sure
they still love and care about you but i bet they talk about your
"eccentricities" when you aren't around. have you always been this
irrational or is this a recent age-related change? could you be
exhibiting the signs of early-onset alzeheimers?
sad. pathetic. but annoying nonetheless. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Sep 05, 2008 8:13 am
|
|