Dear Friends,
As you know, a poster with the initials RM does not
give use his name, but claims certain qualifications
which we can not check.
Equally, I have not identified my 14 year-old friends
Shawn-Jon for exactly the same reson. You can believe
RM, or Shawn as you chooes.
It is true that the plus-for-prevention is difficult
to use, and depends more on the person’s fortitude,
than anything that can be "prescribed". In that
sense the issue truly is the motivation concerned
with protecting his distant vision by use of the plus.
Subject: Commentary by Jon on Mike’s theory of nearsightedness.
Jon > Please forward this to Mike Tyner as well.
Otis> I will — but he might choke.
_______________
Dear Jon,
Mike Tyner is "making up" statements to avert the fact that
nearsighedness (in the first stage) is preventable — and you have
done it with outstanding success.
He must do this (for sci.med.vision consumption) so that
others — less gifted — will avoid the idea that nearsighedness
(on the threshold) can be defeated the way that Stirling did it.
No optometrist I know of EVER does ANY identification of that
nature. All they do is put a minus lens on you to a strength that
just-clears the 20/20 line. They then "pat you on the head" and
send you on your way.
Equally, a percentage of optometrists have advocated
prevention over the last 100 years, by "correct use" of a plus
lens. But correct implementation has eluded them — because
the "patient" involved has not understood the need to use
the plus "correctly". Only when you actually used the plus with
great force and persistance — could you be successful, and
obviously under your full control
I am willing to discuss some of these details with you — of
course.
But the basic concept of prevention (from direct-experimental
data) is correct.
As I stated when we began this — everything depended on the
fact that you would gain "measurement control". Once you do this
— you become the "responsible engineer". You are still young for
this analysis — but I am certain you have that capability also.
It just takes analytic skills.
You might read the book by Thomas Kuhn, called "The Structure
of Scientific Revolutions" for background — and a book report.
Mike Tyner is using the method put in place 400 years ago.
Whatever "science" it was based on — was available then.
It is very easy to "quick-fix" the public that walks in off the
street. For "optometry" it is probably impossible to get beyond
that point in "their" science.
If he argued that the "public" was ignorant, and
non-motivated, I would agree with him completely. But you are not
"the public", and you have the right to use your own judgment
about science, facts, and protect your own visual future under
your own control.
To further respond:
______________________
Jon > Dear Otis
Jon > I read where Mike Tyner states that it is only possible for
accomodation myopes to improve their vision with the plus.
Otis> Mike has no clue about who can work their way out of
nearsighedness. I would suspect a large number of pilots
could do so — if they had the motivation for it — and
engineering support. This is a conveient ploy — just
describe everyone who works himself clear — as having
"preventable myopia". Always easy to do — after the fact!
Jon > He says it isnt possible for other types of myopia to be
reversed with the plus.
Otis> I would agree that once YOU BEGIN WEARING THE MINUS you will
develop NOT-PREVENABLE myopia — caused by that minus lens.
Otis> You were both lucky and smart not to be caught in that trap!
Jon > I think he may be wrong,
Otis> You are correct. Remember what I said about money, power
and position. He must twist everything to maitain all of
these things for himself. Truth, accurate scientific fact,
and your long-term visual is not important to him — they
are only to you, and other scientists like Stirling Colgate,
Francis Young and Howard Howland.
Jon > …Because when I went to my OD in april he told my my
problem was that my cornea was too steep.
Otis> This is an extrapolation from a bad theory. There is no way
anyone could make that determination from an eye were only
the reafractive status is measured.
Jon > He never mentioned psuedo-myopia as being my problem.
Otis> There is a profound misconception at work here. It is the
"bad theory" belief that the eye is a "frozen" box camera,
and that you can analyize the eye that way. This is called
a "paradigm". The scientific concept is that the eye is
"dynamic". This is a much more accurate concept — and in
the event you have proven this fact to youself by getting
your refractive status to change by +1.5 dipoters and
clearing to 20/20. For you that is the real proof — that
you can do this work successfully under your own control.
Otis> Don’t let these closed-minded ODs get you down. Remember
the "quality" of Dr. Stirling Colgate and Dr. Steve Leung.
Successful prevention is indeed the "medical"
second-opinion, even though very difficult.
Otis> Steve Leung OD is working FOR YOU, and using the plus on his
own young children. This is the true nature of an honest
"second opinion"
Best,
Otis
Otis, the scientific revolutionary once again elevates himself.
otisbr…@pa.net (Otis Brown) wrote in
news:6dbddb9.0411301826.b141327@posting.google.com:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Dear Friends,
> As you know, a poster with the initials RM does not
> give use his name, but claims certain qualifications
> which we can not check.
> Equally, I have not identified my 14 year-old friends
> Shawn-Jon for exactly the same reson. You can believe
> RM, or Shawn as you chooes.
> It is true that the plus-for-prevention is difficult
> to use, and depends more on the person’s fortitude,
> than anything that can be "prescribed". In that
> sense the issue truly is the motivation concerned
> with protecting his distant vision by use of the plus.
> Subject: Commentary by Jon on Mike’s theory of nearsightedness.
> Jon > Please forward this to Mike Tyner as well.
> Otis> I will — but he might choke.
> _______________
> Dear Jon,
> Mike Tyner is "making up" statements to avert the fact that
> nearsighedness (in the first stage) is preventable — and you have
> done it with outstanding success.
> He must do this (for sci.med.vision consumption) so that
> others — less gifted — will avoid the idea that nearsighedness
> (on the threshold) can be defeated the way that Stirling did it.
> No optometrist I know of EVER does ANY identification of that
> nature. All they do is put a minus lens on you to a strength that
> just-clears the 20/20 line. They then "pat you on the head" and
> send you on your way.
> Equally, a percentage of optometrists have advocated
> prevention over the last 100 years, by "correct use" of a plus
> lens. But correct implementation has eluded them — because
> the "patient" involved has not understood the need to use
> the plus "correctly". Only when you actually used the plus with
> great force and persistance — could you be successful, and
> obviously under your full control
> I am willing to discuss some of these details with you — of
> course.
> But the basic concept of prevention (from direct-experimental
> data) is correct.
> As I stated when we began this — everything depended on the
> fact that you would gain "measurement control". Once you do this
> — you become the "responsible engineer". You are still young for
> this analysis — but I am certain you have that capability also.
> It just takes analytic skills.
> You might read the book by Thomas Kuhn, called "The Structure
> of Scientific Revolutions" for background — and a book report.
> Mike Tyner is using the method put in place 400 years ago.
> Whatever "science" it was based on — was available then.
> It is very easy to "quick-fix" the public that walks in off the
> street. For "optometry" it is probably impossible to get beyond
> that point in "their" science.
> If he argued that the "public" was ignorant, and
> non-motivated, I would agree with him completely. But you are not
> "the public", and you have the right to use your own judgment
> about science, facts, and protect your own visual future under
> your own control.
> To further respond:
> ______________________
> Jon > Dear Otis
> Jon > I read where Mike Tyner states that it is only possible for
> accomodation myopes to improve their vision with the plus.
> Otis> Mike has no clue about who can work their way out of
> nearsighedness. I would suspect a large number of pilots
> could do so — if they had the motivation for it — and
> engineering support. This is a conveient ploy — just
> describe everyone who works himself clear — as having
> "preventable myopia". Always easy to do — after the fact!
> Jon > He says it isnt possible for other types of myopia to be
> reversed with the plus.
> Otis> I would agree that once YOU BEGIN WEARING THE MINUS you will
> develop NOT-PREVENABLE myopia — caused by that minus lens.
> Otis> You were both lucky and smart not to be caught in that trap!
> Jon > I think he may be wrong,
> Otis> You are correct. Remember what I said about money, power
> and position. He must twist everything to maitain all of
> these things for himself. Truth, accurate scientific fact,
> and your long-term visual is not important to him — they
> are only to you, and other scientists like Stirling Colgate,
> Francis Young and Howard Howland.
> Jon > …Because when I went to my OD in april he told my my
> problem was that my cornea was too steep.
> Otis> This is an extrapolation from a bad theory. There is no way
> anyone could make that determination from an eye were only
> the reafractive status is measured.
> Jon > He never mentioned psuedo-myopia as being my problem.
> Otis> There is a profound misconception at work here. It is the
> "bad theory" belief that the eye is a "frozen" box camera,
> and that you can analyize the eye that way. This is called
> a "paradigm". The scientific concept is that the eye is
> "dynamic". This is a much more accurate concept — and in
> the event you have proven this fact to youself by getting
> your refractive status to change by +1.5 dipoters and
> clearing to 20/20. For you that is the real proof — that
> you can do this work successfully under your own control.
> Otis> Don’t let these closed-minded ODs get you down. Remember
> the "quality" of Dr. Stirling Colgate and Dr. Steve Leung.
> Successful prevention is indeed the "medical"
> second-opinion, even though very difficult.
> Otis> Steve Leung OD is working FOR YOU, and using the plus on his
> own young children. This is the true nature of an honest
> "second opinion"
> Best,
> Otis
This posting is an automatic reply to any sci.med.vision newsgroup thread
that is receiving comments from a certain person named "Otis Brown" or
"Otis, Engineer".
Otis is not an expert in any field of vision. His medical and eyecare
training is nil. He is a proponent of a myopia (i.e. nearsightedness)
prevention technique that is unproven at best, and has in some aspects even
been disproven by controlled scientific studies. He has posted and reposted
his ideas approximately 1000 times over the last two years despite being
repeatedly debunked by numerous doctor practitioners and vision scientists.
No one means to suppress the opinions of others. This message is only meant
to forewarn anyone who might misconstrue Otis as a trained eyecare expert.
DO NOT REPLY TO HIS POSTINGS. Do not feed the troll!
Please see the weekly posting "welcome to sci.med.vision" which appears on
Mondays for information on how to filter out his posts so that you may be
able to participate in worthwhile discussions in this forum. Thank you for
your cooperation and
understanding.
"RM" <priv…@piracy.net> wrote in news:cojaup02t01@enews4.newsguy.com:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> This posting is an automatic reply to any sci.med.vision newsgroup
> thread that is receiving comments from a certain person named "Otis
> Brown" or "Otis, Engineer".
> Otis is not an expert in any field of vision. His medical and eyecare
> training is nil. He is a proponent of a myopia (i.e. nearsightedness)
> prevention technique that is unproven at best, and has in some aspects
> even been disproven by controlled scientific studies. He has posted
> and reposted his ideas approximately 1000 times over the last two
> years despite being repeatedly debunked by numerous doctor
> practitioners and vision scientists.
> No one means to suppress the opinions of others. This message is only
> meant to forewarn anyone who might misconstrue Otis as a trained
> eyecare expert.
> DO NOT REPLY TO HIS POSTINGS. Do not feed the troll!
> Please see the weekly posting "welcome to sci.med.vision" which
> appears on Mondays for information on how to filter out his posts so
> that you may be able to participate in worthwhile discussions in this
> forum. Thank you for your cooperation and
> understanding.
Sorry. I violated the rule. NO RESPONSE.
DrG
"Otis Brown" <otisbr…@pa.net> wrote
> Otis> You are correct. Remember what I said about money, power
> and position. He must twist everything to maitain all of
> these things for himself.
Incredible. Just incredible.
-MT
Don’t you love the wealth, power, and status that being an optometrist
provides?
——–
"Mike Tyner" <mty…@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:SKard.11161$Ua.1866@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "Otis Brown" <otisbr…@pa.net> wrote
>> Otis> You are correct. Remember what I said about money, power
>> and position. He must twist everything to maitain all of
>> these things for himself.
> Incredible. Just incredible.
> -MT
In article <cokkqi0…@enews2.newsguy.com>, "RM" <priv…@piracy.net> wrote:
> Don’t you love the wealth, power, and status that being an optometrist
> provides?
These things are all relative. A lot of people are jealous of MDs, so I
was surprised one day (many years ago) to find out that primary care MDs
think that they are on the bottom of the heap and are (some) insanely
jealous of specialists.
If you don’t think that ODs are way above the median in terms of wealth,
power and status, then you aren’t being very realistic. How would you
like to be a checker or stocker at Kmart? Do you think those people have
more wealth, power and status than you do?
–
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS
da…@sonic.net
Dan,
yes, everything is relative. I am happy to be an optometrist. I can help
people, I can make a decent living (but it may not be as lucrative as you
think), it doesn’t involve backbreaking physical labor, I don’t get called
in the middle of the night with emergencies (usually), and I don’t have to
watch people get sick and die the way some physicians do. I worked hard
and spent alot of time and money to earn this career. Anyone in this
country who is so motivated can become an optometrist too.
Regardless, the whole context of the remarks in this thread is around Otis’
original posting in which he implies that optometrists purposely use minus
lenses so as to promote patients to need even more spectacle correction in
the future. He seems to believe we do this so we can earn more money, cause
patients to be dependent upon us, etc. Otis believes we are all involved in
some kind of conspiracy.
"Dan Abel" <da…@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:dabel-0112040926470001@ssu-64en129.sonoma.edu…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> In article <cokkqi0…@enews2.newsguy.com>, "RM" <priv…@piracy.net>
> wrote:
>> Don’t you love the wealth, power, and status that being an optometrist
>> provides?
> These things are all relative. A lot of people are jealous of MDs, so I
> was surprised one day (many years ago) to find out that primary care MDs
> think that they are on the bottom of the heap and are (some) insanely
> jealous of specialists.
> If you don’t think that ODs are way above the median in terms of wealth,
> power and status, then you aren’t being very realistic. How would you
> like to be a checker or stocker at Kmart? Do you think those people have
> more wealth, power and status than you do?
>
> —
> Dan Abel
> Sonoma State University
> AIS
> da…@sonic.net
"RM" <priv…@piracy.net> wrote in message <news:cokkqi0r62@enews2.newsguy.com>…
> Don’t you love the wealth, power, and status that being an optometrist
> provides?
To be an optometrist is really a very rude profession.
They are still like 400 years ago, still believing that imperfect
sight cannot be treated, nor cured.
"RM" <priv…@piracy.net> wrote in message <news:cojaup02t01@enews4.newsguy.com>…
> DO NOT REPLY TO HIS POSTINGS. Do not feed the troll!
My god, this is the fear you have, that any troll-like person like
Otis can spoil your whole business…
But what are you believing to be?
So important a person???
Be serious!!!
"RM" <priv…@piracy.net> wrote
> Don’t you love the wealth, power, and status that being an optometrist
> provides?
The same thing we do every night, Pinky… try to take over the world…
-MT
g.ga…@agora.it (Rishi Giovanni Gatti) wrote in message <news:c72b1499.0412011026.1881f76b@posting.google.com>…
> "RM" <priv…@piracy.net> wrote in message <news:cokkqi0r62@enews2.newsguy.com>…
> > Don’t you love the wealth, power, and status that being an optometrist
> > provides?
> To be an optometrist is really a very rude profession.
> They are still like 400 years ago, still believing that imperfect
> sight cannot be treated, nor cured.
Now get back to work and finish polishing my Ferarri, otherwise there
be no tip for you!!
frank
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
otisbr…@pa.net (Otis Brown) wrote in message <news:6dbddb9.0411301826.b141327@posting.google.com>…
> Dear Friends,
> As you know, a poster with the initials RM does not
> give use his name, but claims certain qualifications
> which we can not check.
> Equally, I have not identified my 14 year-old friends
> Shawn-Jon for exactly the same reson. You can believe
> RM, or Shawn as you chooes.
> It is true that the plus-for-prevention is difficult
> to use, and depends more on the person’s fortitude,
> than anything that can be "prescribed". In that
> sense the issue truly is the motivation concerned
> with protecting his distant vision by use of the plus.
> Subject: Commentary by Jon on Mike’s theory of nearsightedness.
> Jon > Please forward this to Mike Tyner as well.
> Otis> I will — but he might choke.
> _______________
> (Major snip, same old repetition)
Aren’t you the least bit sheepish that you have to rely on
a teenager to help your battle(s)?? Do you even have the
parents permission to be using him as a "poster boy" for
your cause??
Did this teen get a pre/post cycloplegic (or at least a pre/
post dry retinoscopy/subj refraction) exam to verify his
statements/results?? Some individuals are very good at squinting
and at letter recognition.
frank
Dear Rishi,
It is intersting that they post againt the concept
of prevention, and your right of choice — while
they ignore you?
What is that?
Best,
Otis
g.ga…@agora.it (Rishi Giovanni Gatti) wrote in message <news:c72b1499.0412011028.5d202028@posting.google.com>…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "RM" <priv…@piracy.net> wrote in message <news:cojaup02t01@enews4.newsguy.com>…
> > DO NOT REPLY TO HIS POSTINGS. Do not feed the troll!
> My god, this is the fear you have, that any troll-like person like
> Otis can spoil your whole business…
> But what are you believing to be?
> So important a person???
> Be serious!!!
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
drfran…@hotmail.com (drfrank21) wrote in message <news:e04e8a5a.0412011506.17341cee@posting.google.com>…
> otisbr…@pa.net (Otis Brown) wrote in message <news:6dbddb9.0411301826.b141327@posting.google.com>…
> > Dear Friends,
> > As you know, a poster with the initials RM does not
> > give use his name, but claims certain qualifications
> > which we can not check.
> > Equally, I have not identified my 14 year-old friends
> > Shawn-Jon for exactly the same reson. You can believe
> > RM, or Shawn as you chooes.
> > It is true that the plus-for-prevention is difficult
> > to use, and depends more on the person’s fortitude,
> > than anything that can be "prescribed". In that
> > sense the issue truly is the motivation concerned
> > with protecting his distant vision by use of the plus.
> > Subject: Commentary by Jon on Mike’s theory of nearsightedness.
> > Jon > Please forward this to Mike Tyner as well.
> > Otis> I will — but he might choke.
> > _______________
> > (Major snip, same old repetition)
> Aren’t you the least bit sheepish that you have to rely on
> a teenager to help your battle(s)?? Do you even have the
> parents permission to be using him as a "poster boy" for
> your cause??
> Did this teen get a pre/post cycloplegic (or at least a pre/
> post dry retinoscopy/subj refraction) exam to verify his
> statements/results?? Some individuals are very good at squinting
> and at letter recognition.
> frank
Dear Frank,
First you claim that this intelligent young man
is a "child".
Then you say he does not "exist".
Then you say he was not nearsighed.
Then you say he did not clear his
distant vision to 20/20, through
some very hard personal work.
I will forward this to him. He
has more interesting work to maintain
his distant vision at 20/20,
rather that you worry about you
artifical "concern" for him.
He is old enough to think for himself
and follow the advice of a scientist
who previously cleared his distant
vision by this method.
Best,
Otis
On 30 Nov 2004 18:26:52 -0800, Otis Brown wrote:
> Equally, I have not identified my 14 year-old friends
> Shawn-Jon for exactly the same reson. You can believe
> RM, or Shawn as you chooes.
Why should we believe you???? Shawn if he is so intelligent should be able
to speak for himself on this newsgroup.
Or maybe he can’t since Shawn does not exist.
Allen
A Lieberman <liebe…@myself.com> wrote in message <news:1buv5ttnc7ggi$.137gep4cr0ov6$.dlg@40tude.net>…
> On 30 Nov 2004 18:26:52 -0800, Otis Brown wrote:
> > Equally, I have not identified my 14 year-old friends
> > Shawn-Jon for exactly the same reson. You can believe
> > RM, or Shawn as you chooes.
> Why should we believe you????
Otis> Please, Allen, do not believe me. I believe
in experimental truth as it concerns the dynamic
behavior of the "natural eye". This is tested
using basic "input" versus "output" methods.
The testing yields a very accurate model for
the natural eye’s performance under direct
test. Shawn has an order of intelligence
and motivation about this issue that I have
seen in VERY FEW PEOPLE.
Otis> But let me ask another question.
Why should Shawn believe you?
Shawn if he is so intelligent should be able
> to speak for himself on this newsgroup.
Otis> Shawn looks at the objective scientific
data concerning the eye’s behavior. He is busy
working to achieve "best visual acuity", which
is far above 20/20. You apparently believe
that:
1. He should not do this
2. He can not do it.
And after he does it, you will say it
never happened.
I think the wisdom about this issue is
in Shawn — and certainly not in you.
But, as before that is his choice.
Maintain clear distant vision for the
next 7 years, or start wearing an
over-prescribed minus lens.
His choice indeed.
> Or maybe he can’t since Shawn does not exist.
Allen, you believe what you wish to believe.
If you wish to believe that the natural
eye is a box camera — then do it.
Otis> The only person who has "won" this
battle is Shawn — and he is the only
person who matters.
Best,
Otis
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Allen
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> > > (Major snip, same old repetition)
> > Aren’t you the least bit sheepish that you have to rely on
> > a teenager to help your battle(s)?? Do you even have the
> > parents permission to be using him as a "poster boy" for
> > your cause??
> > Did this teen get a pre/post cycloplegic (or at least a pre/
> > post dry retinoscopy/subj refraction) exam to verify his
> > statements/results?? Some individuals are very good at squinting
> > and at letter recognition.
> > frank
> Dear Frank,
> First you claim that this intelligent young man
> is a "child".
> Then you say he does not "exist".
> Then you say he was not nearsighed.
> Then you say he did not clear his
> distant vision to 20/20, through
> some very hard personal work.
> I will forward this to him. He
> has more interesting work to maintain
> his distant vision at 20/20,
> rather that you worry about you
> artifical "concern" for him.
> He is old enough to think for himself
> and follow the advice of a scientist
> who previously cleared his distant
> vision by this method.
> Best,
> Otis
Let’s just cut to the chase. I asked you 3 simple questions
and you conveniently ignored them all. That tells me that
either that you don’t have the answers or you don’t care
to tell us. They are all legitimate questions.
Not only do you not answer them but your credibility plunges
even further to me when you out and out lie. Tell me exactly
where I said HE didn’t exist or that he was NOT nearsighted??
You can’t. As an engineer I would think that you would want
to have some hard evidence (pre and post cycloplegic exams)
to prove your postings. Apparently not. You are just interested
in mis-statements and outright lying at this point.
So are you going to retract your lies or at least answer my
questions. I bet not- your modus operandi will now be "I will
forward this to…." and other ad nauseum reiterations.
frank
otisbr…@pa.net (Otis Brown) wrote in message <news:6dbddb9.0412011854.35157357@posting.google.com>…
> Dear Rishi,
> It is intersting that they post againt the concept
> of prevention, and your right of choice — while
> they ignore you?
> What is that?
I really don’t know, these people are nuts, they are afraid to become
like zombies…
And they are medical men!!!
drfran…@hotmail.com (drfrank21) wrote in message <news:e04e8a5a.0412011436.7b4cc72d@posting.google.com>…
> g.ga…@agora.it (Rishi Giovanni Gatti) wrote in message <news:c72b1499.0412011026.1881f76b@posting.google.com>…
> > "RM" <priv…@piracy.net> wrote in message <news:cokkqi0r62@enews2.newsguy.com>…
> > > Don’t you love the wealth, power, and status that being an optometrist
> > > provides?
> > To be an optometrist is really a very rude profession.
> > They are still like 400 years ago, still believing that imperfect
> > sight cannot be treated, nor cured.
> Now get back to work and finish polishing my Ferarri, otherwise there
> be no tip for you!!
???
All sorts of mad people come here to read my messages and then cannot
abstain from comment.
In article <6dbddb9.0412021049.106eb…@posting.google.com>,
otisbr…@pa.net (Otis Brown) wrote:
> If you wish to believe that the natural
> eye is a box camera — then do it.
Why do you keep bringing this up? Can you name one single person on this
group who thinks the eye is like a box camera? I certainly don’t. That
doesn’t mean that I think that the eye changes its basic shape when you do
eye exercises, either.
–
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS
da…@sonic.net
"Dan Abel" <da…@sonic.net> wrote
>> Otis> If you wish to believe that the natural
>> eye is a box camera — then do it.
> Why do you keep bringing this up? Can you name one single person on this
> group who thinks the eye is like a box camera? I certainly don’t. That
> doesn’t mean that I think that the eye changes its basic shape when you do
> eye exercises, either.
That’s the essence of the "strawman" technique. Otis argues both sides, so
then he can tattle to his "friends" through the filter of his own limited
experience.
He doesn’t know a single optometrist who does cycloplegic refractions,
therefore none of us do.
-MT
Dear Rishi,
Subject: Challenging existing "authority".
The history of medicine has been the habit of adopting
methods that work "instantly", and following
"traditional" methods and practice.
This is EXACTLY the problem that Dr. Bates encountered
when he attempted to point out that there might
be a "problem" with the minus lens. Obviously
you know what happened to him.
An even more egregious example was the case
of Imanual Siemelwiess who noticed that the
death-rate in young woman was profoundly worse
when the doctors delivered the babys. In fact
it would run 30 percent.
Seiemlwiess (by washing hands and other techniques)
reduced this rate to about 1 percent. Was
his method accepted? Absolulty not. His
commision was not renewed, and he became
a pariah of the medical profession.
The "traditional" MDs ran studies that PROVED
that washing your hands had NO EFFECT on
the death rate.
It took 30 years before some of the MDs "woke up"
to what they were doing.
So yes, that is the nature of the "warning"
posted against the concept that the natural
eye is a sophisticated and dynamic system.
Best,
Otis
Engineer
(Not a medical person — for obvious reasons.)
g.ga…@agora.it (Rishi Giovanni Gatti) wrote in message <news:c72b1499.0412020953.3af6162a@posting.google.com>…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> otisbr…@pa.net (Otis Brown) wrote in message <news:6dbddb9.0412011854.35157357@posting.google.com>…
> > Dear Rishi,
> > It is intersting that they post againt the concept
> > of prevention, and your right of choice — while
> > they ignore you?
> > What is that?
> I really don’t know, these people are nuts, they are afraid to become
> like zombies…
> And they are medical men!!!
Gotta love it!
Otis posting to Rishi and Rishi to Otis.
Speaking of the "blind leading the blind" !!!
That’s the answer to getting rid of the them! Let them simply do it to
each other and the rest of us can proceed with intelligent and useful
dialog as they babble on in their own little world. Yeh!
Dear Friends,
There is always a dispute — of course!
If the OD wished to make the comment that most
people have no interest in prevention — I would
agree with them.
Dispite all the self-serving distortions about
my statements concening objective factual
data and the dynamic behavior of the
fundamental eye — I bear no ill-will
to the ODs on this site.
In fact I think they face an "impossible"
situation that is now totally out of control,
witness the 92 percent of the MDs on
Taiwan. We (and they) are not making
thinks better with the minus lens, and
in fact are most likely making it worse.
But equally, I do not "deal" with a
great mass of people walking in off
the street — expecting extremely
sharp vision in 15 minutes.
That is not engineering-science,
but perhaps you can call it
"medical-science".
The difference is in the education
and motivation of the person (or pilot)
who is interested in true-prevention.
In fact a percentage of ODs has CONSISTENTLY
advocated the use of the plus over the
last 100 years. But to suggest something
like that requires planning, review
of the facts, and people who actually
examine objective facts — before they
start a preventive effort.
I suggest thst this is possible
in an "open" academic environment,
where an educated pilot would
be in "control" of the effort
in a systematic manner.
I believe this is possible and
will support it.
But that is were we stand at
the present time.
http://www.myopiafree.com
Best,
Otis
Engineer
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
LarryDoc <larry…@nospam.yahoodotcom> wrote in message <news:larrydoc-36B83C.10184503122004@news.verizon.net>…
> Gotta love it!
> Otis posting to Rishi and Rishi to Otis.
> Speaking of the "blind leading the blind" !!!
> That’s the answer to getting rid of the them! Let them simply do it to
> each other and the rest of us can proceed with intelligent and useful
> dialog as they babble on in their own little world. Yeh!