need info.

#36 08-09-2006, 12:41 PM

CatmanX wrote:
- quote -

> otisbrown[at]pa.net wrote:
> > Dear AceMan,
> > > The insulting remarks by Grant, only confirm that August did it
> > absolutly correctly.
> How does this confirm anything other than you are a total wanker? Who
> is August? Another figment of your imagination, or just ran out of
> names and used this month instead?
> > He did it himself, and by clearing his vision from -1 diopter
> > (about 20/60) to 20/20, he:
> Did he now? Where is the evidence?
> > > 1. Avoided entery into myopa.
> I thought he was myopa already? You said he was.
> > > 2. Avoided secondary stair-case myopia from the minus.
> He probably took the elevator.
> > > 3. Avoided these insulting ODs.
> Only smart OD's here. They just know what a dickhead you are Cletis.
> > > 4. Will keep his distant vision clear (by monitoring his
> > Snellen -- and using the plus when necessary).
> Yes, looking at a letter chart will keep the evil minus away.
> > > 5. Thus preventive success NEVER becomes an
> > OD issue. That is how they can deny these successes.
> I wish preventative measures were taken by your parents. The world
> would be a better place filled with less crap.
> > > Sorry that I am such a wanker,
> > > Otis
> I am sorry you are a wanker too Cletis. Put it away and go flail
> yourself for penance.

What the man said!

DrG

#35 08-09-2006, 12:39 PM

LarryDoc wrote:

- quote -

> Yet they go on. Even after we prove to them how those half dozen people
> became less nearsighted. It is not a mystery, it is science. What THEY
> propose is hogwash and bullshit. Proven hogwash and bullshit. For those
> readers who don't get the American vernacular, it means "totally without
> any possibility of having anything to do with reality."
> And the saddest part of this is no matter how many times we say this,
> they go on. More than sad, pathetic.

I'm sure a psychologist would have better insight.

DrG

#34 08-09-2006, 07:18 AM

otisbrown[at]pa.net wrote:
- quote -

> Dear AceMan,
> The insulting remarks by Grant, only confirm that August did it
> absolutly correctly.

How does this confirm anything other than you are a total wanker? Who
is August? Another figment of your imagination, or just ran out of
names and used this month instead?

- quote -

> He did it himself, and by clearing his vision from -1 diopter
> (about 20/60) to 20/20, he:

Did he now? Where is the evidence?
- quote -

> 1. Avoided entery into myopa.

I thought he was myopa already? You said he was.
- quote -

> 2. Avoided secondary stair-case myopia from the minus.

He probably took the elevator.
- quote -

> 3. Avoided these insulting ODs.

Only smart OD's here. They just know what a dickhead you are Cletis.

- quote -

> 4. Will keep his distant vision clear (by monitoring his
> Snellen -- and using the plus when necessary).

Yes, looking at a letter chart will keep the evil minus away.

- quote -

> 5. Thus preventive success NEVER becomes an
> OD issue. That is how they can deny these successes.

I wish preventative measures were taken by your parents. The world
would be a better place filled with less crap.
- quote -

> Sorry that I am such a wanker,
> Otis

I am sorry you are a wanker too Cletis. Put it away and go flail
yourself for penance.

#33 08-09-2006, 06:14 AM

In article <5qmdnRfjJvWKtkTZnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d[at]giganews.com> ,
"Mike Tyner" <mtyner[at]mindspring.com> wrote:

- quote -

> <acemanvx[at]yahoo.com> wrote
> > None of us claimed that plus lens can reverse stair-case myopia. It
> > must be done on the treshold of 20/50 to 20/70 in order to restore
> > clear vision.
> I'm sorry if you think I'm dense but you'll have to explain the difference
> between "reversing stair-case myopia" and "restoring clear vision from
> 20/70."
> If you can do that, perhaps you can show us some evidence SOMEWHERE that
> plus actually does some good. When professionals test that hypothesis in
> humans, using cycloplegics and control groups, it doesn't work.
> Then perhaps you can explain why my 3:30 patient wore +050 on both eyes for
> reading over the past two years, and still got nearsighted.

Or MY 10:30 patient who wore -7.00 lenses for nearly a year, having lost
the -6.00 she should have been using and nevertheless refracted -5.50
with 20/15 VA!

One more thing: She's an avid reader and reads with her spectacles on.
Overcorrected, even. And still, less myopia.

Clearly (and I mean that!) no one is going to convince our resident
zealots and morons (Ace and Otis) the meaning of 60 years of scientific
studies and a few hundred thousand or a million people who did not get
more nearsighted because of using minus lenses or less nearsighted due
to using less minus or plus lenses. Of course not. They have one
half-assed disproved study and a half dozen anecdotal reports that
conflict with the millions of other clinically proven cases.

Yet they go on. Even after we prove to them how those half dozen people
became less nearsighted. It is not a mystery, it is science. What THEY
propose is hogwash and bullshit. Proven hogwash and bullshit. For those
readers who don't get the American vernacular, it means "totally without
any possibility of having anything to do with reality."

And the saddest part of this is no matter how many times we say this,
they go on. More than sad, pathetic.

LB

#32 08-09-2006, 03:53 AM

otisbrown[at]pa.net wrote:
- quote -

> 5. Thus preventive success NEVER becomes an
> OD issue. That is how they can deny these successes.

Every OD in clinical practice has seen myopia reverse, and without the
use of plus lenses and bifocals. It's called pseudomyopia. Axial
myopia will not reverse, and cannot be prevented with plus lenses.

DrG

#31 08-09-2006, 02:59 AM

Dear AceMan,

The insulting remarks by Grant, only confirm that August did it
absolutly correctly.

He did it himself, and by clearing his vision from -1 diopter
(about 20/60) to 20/20, he:

1. Avoided entery into myopa.

2. Avoided secondary stair-case myopia from the minus.

3. Avoided these insulting ODs.

4. Will keep his distant vision clear (by monitoring his
Snellen -- and using the plus when necessary).

5. Thus preventive success NEVER becomes an
OD issue. That is how they can deny these successes.

Best,

Otis

- quote -

> Its repetitive but new people read this and learn to make a choice.
> Otis says optometrists are only good for checking for diseases and
> occular pathalogies but for the refractive state, you have to take it
> in your own hands. Your distance vision starts going, confirm that it
> is myopia and not a disease by seeing an optometrist. Then buy some $8
> reading glasses and fix your eyes like August did(proof below)
> http://www.tc.umn.edu/~schw0709/stor...onTherapy.html

acemanvx[at]yahoo.com wrote:
- quote -

> LarryDoc:
> > In article <1154956082.750386.50140[at]75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> ,
> > "otisbrown[at]pa.net" <otisbrown[at]pa.net> wrote:
> > > > Dear Friends,
> > > No one here is your friend, except perhaps the moron Ace, who doesn't
> > know any better.
> He has plenty of friends and my friends support Otis. He posts in a NVI
> forum where dozens support him.
> > It's the majority opinion because decades of real life experience and
> > dozens and dozens of scientific studies prove it. The "other opinion" is
> > embraced by about 4 people on the planet. I'd call that "the irrelevant
> > opinion".
> Yet despite what they "prove" the plus lens countinues to work.
> http://www.tc.umn.edu/~schw0709/stor...onTherapy.html
> > Don't you get even a little bit bored with yourself posting the same
> > garbage day in and day out, year after year? You are a very sick old
> > man.
> > > LB
> Its repetitive but new people read this and learn to make a choice.
> Otis says optometrists are only good for checking for diseases and
> occular pathalogies but for the refractive state, you have to take it
> in your own hands. Your distance vision starts going, confirm that it
> is myopia and not a disease by seeing an optometrist. Then buy some $8
> reading glasses and fix your eyes like August did(proof below)
> http://www.tc.umn.edu/~schw0709/stor...onTherapy.html

#30 08-09-2006, 02:48 AM

This message applies to you too Cletis. You are making out you have
some knowledge on the subject of myopia, when in reality, you know
little. You provide anecdotes, false names, discredited quacks and
discredited research, as well as your own jargon, to make a point that
does not exist.

Crawl under a rock and stay there.

dr grant

#29 08-09-2006, 12:23 AM

<acemanvx[at]yahoo.com> wrote

- quote -

> None of us claimed that plus lens can reverse stair-case myopia. It
> must be done on the treshold of 20/50 to 20/70 in order to restore
> clear vision.

I'm sorry if you think I'm dense but you'll have to explain the difference
between "reversing stair-case myopia" and "restoring clear vision from
20/70."

If you can do that, perhaps you can show us some evidence SOMEWHERE that
plus actually does some good. When professionals test that hypothesis in
humans, using cycloplegics and control groups, it doesn't work.

Then perhaps you can explain why my 3:30 patient wore +050 on both eyes for
reading over the past two years, and still got nearsighted.

Or perhaps not.

-MT

#28 08-09-2006, 12:08 AM

acemanvx[at]yahoo.com wrote:
- quote -

> Dr. Leukoma wrote:
snip

- quote -

> > Plus lenses work for hyperopia, accommodative esotropia/esophoria,
> > presbyopia, and pseudomyopia. They do not work for axial myopia, and
> > they will not prevent myopia. In fact, plus lenses may make myopia
> > worse.
> > > DrG
> None of us claimed that plus lens can reverse stair-case myopia. It
> must be done on the treshold of 20/50 to 20/70 in order to restore
> clear vision.

snip

So what exactly is the difference between reversing myopia and
restoring clear vsion. Wouldn't you need to reverse the myopia which
causes 20/50 in order to restore to 20/20?

#27 08-08-2006, 10:30 PM

acemanvx[at]yahoo.com wrote:

- quote -

> None of us claimed that plus lens can reverse stair-case myopia. It
> must be done on the treshold of 20/50 to 20/70 in order to restore
> clear vision. Even if someone refuses to use the plus lens, what he
> needs to do is NOT read with his head buried in his book. Hold reading
> materials at arms length, take frequent breaks. When you become myopic,
> wear the minus as little as possible and NEVER for anything less than
> far distance. This will help slow your myopia progression. Even
> optometrists agree myopia is part gentic and part environmental!

There is NO such thing as staircase myopia. This is simply a colorful
term Otis likes to use to denote the progressive nature of myopia.

There is no scientific proof to suggest that using plus lenses as you
suggest can prevent or reverse myopia at the 20/50 level, unless such
myopia is entirely accommodative. Most myopia is axial.

What you are suggesting about proper posture and reading distance is
fairly common knowledge among optometrists, so we don't need a lecture
from the likes of you.

The vast majority of optometrists agree that heredity accounts for more
variability in the occurrence of myopia, but environment runs a close
second.

Lastly, much wiser people than you and Otis study such things and have
come to different conclusions, by and large, than the conclusions of
you and Otis.

DrG

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode