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!

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!

>> 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

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!!!

> > 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.

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

> 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!!!

> > 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

- 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