Strange vision problem
DarkProtoman
such:
OS: +1.00D
OD: +4.50D
Now, my OD gave my, as you would expect, a -1.00D lens for the left
eye, and a -4.50D lens for my right eye. But the left eye only gets
slightly better, while I can't notice anything w/ my right eye.
But...when I swap the left and right lenses, my left eye becomes
20/20, and my right eye, while still far from that, gets a small
improvement. How can this be? Also, when I put the new left eye lens
on my right eye, and flip it backwards, aside from it needing a slight
power adjustment and a weird fisheye effect, my right eye is noticebly
improved. What's with this?
Thank you!!!!
otis...@pa.net
I'e got this extremely weird problem: My refractive errors are as
such:
OS: +1.00D
OD: +4.50D
Dark> Now, my OD gave my, as you would expect, a -1.00D lens for the
left
eye, and a -4.50D lens for my right eye.
=============
Otis> Then your OD gave you the incorrect lens for your
stated refractive error.
Otis> Using the Donders theory, you should have been
provided:
OS (left eye) +1 diopter lens for the +1 error. (Or no lens
if you had 20/20. This would be optional, if you
have 20/20.
OD (right eye) +4.5 diopters lens for the +4.5 diopter
refractive ERROR. This would be a classic perscription.
Otis> Did your optometrist explain WHY he was
prescribing a -1 and a -4.5 diopter lens?
Just one man's question.
Otis
FKS
"DarkProtoman" <Protom...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182202074.2...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> I'e got this extremely weird problem: My refractive errors are as
> such:
>
> OS: +1.00D
> OD: +4.50D
>
> Now, my OD gave my, as you would expect, a -1.00D lens for the left
> eye, and a -4.50D lens for my right eye.
Something's wrong with the above statement.
Dan Abel
wrote:
You just have to learn Otis-speak. Makes perfect sense to me. I doubt
that it makes sense to whoever refracted him.
Dr Judy
> such:
>
> OS: +1.00D
> OD: +4.50D
>
> Now, my OD gave my, as you would expect, a -1.00D lens for the left
> eye, and a -4.50D lens for my right eye.
That doesn't make sense, have you reversed the signs or did the
supplier give you the wrong lens?
But the left eye only gets
> slightly better, while I can't notice anything w/ my right eye.
> But...when I swap the left and right lenses, my left eye becomes
> 20/20, and my right eye, while still far from that, gets a small
> improvement. How can this be? Also, when I put the new left eye lens
> on my right eye, and flip it backwards, aside from it needing a slight
> power adjustment and a weird fisheye effect, my right eye is noticebly
> improved. What's with this?
Reversed signs or reversed right and left? Return to the OD to have
it checked out.
Dr Judy
>
> Thank you!!!!
DarkProtoman
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, I had the optician check my lenses as soon as I got them w/ a
lensometer; he said they matched the prescription.
otis...@pa.net
Dear Protoman,
Optometrist Judy is correct about this.
Otis
> lensometer; he said they matched the prescription.- Hide quoted text -
Ms.Brainy
> Dear Protoman,
>
> Optometrist Judy is correct about this.
>
> Otis
>
Dr Judy will be thrilled to read Otis' approval, I'm sure.
Dr Judy
Return to examiner and have him check the lenses as well, maybe he
miswrote the prescription, maybe the optician misread, but an Rx for
(+) lenses should not be filled with (-) lenses.
Dr Judy
Dr Judy
otis...@pa.net
Dear Dark,
The easiest solution is this:
Call the OD, or ophthamologist and ask him
if you are farsighted or myopic.
That will resolve the issue, pronto.
If the prescription is "positive", then you have
plus lenses.
A positive lens will bring sun's rays of light to a point.
A +1 to a point at 1 meter. You could hold the lens in
sun light and see if it forms a image of the sun at 1 meter.
If the light rays diverge (no image), then you have
a negative lens.
Hope this clarifies this issue for you.
Otis
On Jun 18, 5:27 pm, DarkProtoman <Protoman2...@gmail.com> wrote:
DarkProtoman
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am myopic. I need minus lenses. My left eye is my good eye.
otis...@pa.net
Pervious: I'e got this extremely weird problem: My refractive errors
are as
such:
OS: +1.00D
OD: +4.50D
Otis> Then these values should be:
OS: - 1.00 Diopters (Refraction)
OD: - 4.5 Diopters (Refraction).
The lens you have must be minus to clear your distant vision.
Otis
> I am myopic. I need minus lenses. My left eye is my good eye.- Hide quoted text -
p.cl...@gmail.com
do you think that you addressed his questions? do you think that he
understood what you were trying to say?
why can't you just write clear sentences and organize your thoughts in
a straight-forward manner so that a normal logical person can
understand you?
anyway, regardless, I don't understand what you are trying to tell the
original poster other than he should get an explanation from his eye
doctor for why he was given this prescription. and I agree with you
on that. why can't you just write it that simply?
do you have problems organizing your thoughts? have you noticed that
your brain just doesn't seem to work like other people's do? maybe
some medication and some counseling could help.
p.cl...@gmail.com
> such:
>
> OS: +1.00D
> OD: +4.50D
>
> Now, my OD gave my, as you would expect, a -1.00D lens for the left
> eye, and a -4.50D lens for my right eye.
a persons refractive error, by convention, using the same power of
lenses that are required to correct it. Thus, if your refractive
error OD (=right eye), is +4.50 then the lens power that is required
to correct that refractive error is a +4.50 lens. that is simply just
a matter of convention. Also, as a matter of convention the right eye
prescription is written before the left eye (=OS) prescription. in
your post you do not seem to follow the accepted conventions, so it is
hard to give you advise since I cannot tell for sure what your
prescription is.
did the doctor tell you if you are farsighted or nearsighted? and
without any corrective lenses is your distance vision (where targets
are >10 ft.away) pretty clear or is it blurry? what are the exact
numbers that are written on your prescription? when you take off your
eye glasses and hold them a few inches away from some printed words do
they seem to magnify those words, or make them look slightly smaller?
are your lenses thicker at the edges or in the middle?
p.cl...@gmail.com
wow, thanks Otis! now we feel much more comfortable accepting Dr.
Judy's comments after you have given them your approval. after all,
she is only a professionally-trained and board-certified optometrist
with years of clinical experience. its good to know that you, being a
retired ex-engineer (? maybe), approve of her advise.
p.cl...@gmail.com
OK, then your prescription should be written according to proper
convention as:
OD: -4.50 sph
OS: -1.00 sph
the right eye is listed first, and the left eye last.
technically you are correct in that your uncorrected right eye is
really +4.50 with respect to proper focus, and your uncorrected left
eye is +1.00, and therefore you need minus lenses of the same power to
correct them, but convention holds that nearsighted people need minus
power lenses and thus the prescriptions are written that way always.
in the end, all prescriptions are written in terms of the power of the
lenses that are required to correct them.
As for your observations, some of them can be explained and others
can't. since your left eye is already pretty good without the lenses
on it, so when you place a -1.00 lens over it you might not notice a
big difference because it wasn't too bad to begin with.
And in younger people, if you place an excessively strong minus lens
over your eye, like in your case where you put your right lens in
front of your left eye, it might appear to make your vision even
clearer than having the proper -1.00 correction over it. In reality
your acuity shouldn't be improved-- it just makes everything look
higher contrast (darker and smaller). Some people usually like their
vision through an overminused prescription but if you wear it too long
it will give you eyestrain and headaches. Eye doctor try to avoid
overminusing their patients
What doesn't make sense is that putting the -4.50 prescription in
front of your right eye doesn't provide much improvement. It
certainly should unless you are amblyopic in that eye and you don't
use it much anyway. Or perhaps the prescription is incorrect.
Why not visit your eye doctor and ask for an explanation for your
questions?
DarkProtoman
>
> - Show quoted text -
I AM amblyopic in my right eye; I'm myopic in both eyes. I'm seeing
Dr. Leif Hertzog, my opthalmologist, on July 11th. And, I do get a
huge increase in acuity; I can read stuff at longer distances than
before I swapped my lenses; I can read the "no parking" sign from 15ft
away now; I couldn't do that before.
otis...@pa.net
Dear DarkProtoman,
It is always good to be able to double-check your
prescription against the lens you are provided with.
It is also possible to reverse the OD and OS.
Dr. Leif Hertzog will be very supportive of your
desire to learn how to check in this matter,
and that you were able to detect a
techincal problem with the prescription.
Most ophthamologists support your ability
to learn about this subject.
Others (tragically) do not trust your
technical ability.
Otis
> I AM amblyopic in my right eye; I'm myopic in both eyes. I'm seeing
> Dr. Leif Hertzog, my opthalmologist, on July 11th. And, I do get a
> huge increase in acuity; I can read stuff at longer distances than
> before I swapped my lenses; I can read the "no parking" sign from 15ft
> away now; I couldn't do that
> away now; I couldn't do that before.- Hide quoted text -
Mike Tyner
<otis...@pa.net> wrote
> Others (tragically) do not trust your
> technical ability.
Doctor: (hands cover paddle to patient) Cover your right eye for me.
(patient covers right eye and reads the chart)
Doctor: Now cover the other eye.
Patient: (reaches up and covers left eye with his hand) Now I can't see
anything!
True story.
-MT
otis...@pa.net
Ah, yes.
Ho, Ho, Ho -- good optometric laugh line.
Because SOME patients are stupid, and technically
inept -- you naturally ASSUME that all
patients are stupid and inept. And should
be treated that way.
Otis
On Jun 21, 12:19 pm, "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote
Mike Tyner
<otis...@pa.net> wrote
> Because SOME patients are stupid, and technically
> inept -- you naturally ASSUME that all
> patients are stupid and inept. And should
> be treated that way.
When you decide who I am, what I do and how I do it, please let me know.
Some newsgroup participants are stupid and inept. Does that mean they all
are?
-MT
Neil Brooks
>
>Ah, yes.
>
>Ho, Ho, Ho -- good optometric laugh line.
>
>Because SOME patients are stupid, and technically
>inept -- you naturally ASSUME that all
>patients are stupid and inept. And should
>be treated that way.
>
>Otis
Dear Uncle (scr)Otis:
As always, your hypocrisy astounds. YOU are the king of:
- invent a position held by a (fictitious or otherwise) eye doctor;
- extrapolate from that invented position to the presumed "standard
of practice" of ALL eye doctors.
Nobody else around here does that BUT YOU.
God, but you're an idiot.
Neil Brooks
>Most ophthamologists support your ability
>to learn about this subject.
>
>Others (tragically) do not trust your
>technical ability.
Gosh, Uncle Otie.
On what basis do you make THAT claim.
Just some little tidbit that you pulled from your a$$?
Par for the course, sadly.
DarkProtoman
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 08:54:43 -0700, "otisbr...@pa.net"
>
> <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
> >Most ophthamologists support your ability
> >to learn about this subject.
>
> >Others (tragically) do not trust your
> >technical ability.
>
> Gosh, Uncle Otie.
>
> On what basis do you make THAT claim.
>
> Just some little tidbit that you pulled from your a$$?
>
> Par for the course, sadly.
What this Otis Brown guy's story anyway? He needs to be crucified
while getting a 10 gigacandela light shined through +100D lenses in
his eyes --w/ atropine eyedrops for good measure--...
Neil Brooks
You're okay, DarkProtoman.
Stick around. I'll buy lunch ;-)
DarkProtoman
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks! BTW, I'm just wondering, but what do you mean "you're okay"?
Neil Brooks
That was a bit ambiguous. Apologies.
I meant that--having seen through Otis's lunacy so quickly--you're
clearly a rational, bright, and perceptive person.
We like that around here.
It takes more than a few of us to offset Uncle Otie's under-medicated
dementia.
So ... you're okay ... you fit ;-)
Dave Bell
Are you saying that is not true, Neil? How can you speak for all
ophthalmologists, any more than Otis can?
Par for the course again, as the sad little cadre of Otis haters attack
even *correct* and supportive statements, as pclarkii did earlier...
Dark Protoman, you'll just have to learn to live with the poor S/N of this
group. By all means, tune out Otis' extreme and misleading views, but
you'll also have to learn to ognore the whiners.
Dave
Neil Brooks
<db...@TheSPAMFREEBells.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Neil Brooks wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 08:54:43 -0700, "otis...@pa.net"
>> <otis...@pa.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Most ophthamologists support your ability
>> >to learn about this subject.
>> >
>> >Others (tragically) do not trust your
>> >technical ability.
>>
>> Gosh, Uncle Otie.
>>
>> On what basis do you make THAT claim.
>>
>> Just some little tidbit that you pulled from your a$$?
>>
>> Par for the course, sadly.
>
>Are you saying that is not true, Neil? How can you speak for all
>ophthalmologists, any more than Otis can?
Gee, Dave. Maybe it has something to do with all the hours that I've
spent conversing with the teaching ophthalmologists and the faculty at
several of the nation's leading optometry schools ... along with the,
literally, scores of MD's and OD's that I've seen in my life.
Ya' see, Ol' Davie Boy: you'll have to learn a thing or two about me:
1) I started on this forum wayyyy back when.
2) When I know something, I contribute.
3) When I don't know something, I keep my mouth shut.
4) I don't come here merely to bash eye doctors.
5) My dreams of becoming a commercial pilot weren't dashed by myopia.
I DO have vision problems, but I don't pathologically blame them on
some concocted story that gives me a devil to despise.
6) I follow logic, rational thinking, critical thinking, and evidence
to their conclusions. Not the reverse.
7) I don't use fear-mongering like a cult-leader would. I show people
erroneous logic, balls-out lies, mis-statements, evasions, and
half-truths. It's called "impeaching the witness's credibility."
8) I defy you to find one place where I offered anybody any advice
that caused them harm (see #3 above).
If you need/would like me to keep going, I shall. If you look beneath
all of what YOU call "noise," I've generated plenty of what you call
"signal" in my time.
You? You just hypocritally doing what it is you accuse ME of doing?
Got it. Thanks.
DarkProtoman
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:59:09 -0000, DarkProtoman
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yeah, the first one of his responses to my question said I need a
+1.00D lens OS; +4.50D OD. WTF?!!!!? That'd make my vision twice as
worse!!!! I don't need to be tripping over my feet 24/7!!!!!
The OD DID say why he gave me minus lenses...b/c it corrects the
refractive error. Unlike the "Donder's theory" Otis apparently
subscribes to, which would probably get me killed w/in an hour of
recieving my lenses. I'd probably walk into a bus...
DarkProtoman
>
> - Show quoted text -
Uh...myopic is nearsighted. Your eyes are too strong, causing them to
focus in front of the retina; they need a diverging lens --minus
diopter-- to weaken them, allowing them to focus on the retina.
Farsightedness is the reverse of the above.
Dave Bell
> >> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 08:54:43 -0700, "otis...@pa.net"
> >> <otis...@pa.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Most ophthamologists support your ability
> >> >to learn about this subject.
> >> >
> >> >Others (tragically) do not trust your
> >> >technical ability.
> >Are you saying that is not true, Neil? How can you speak for all
> >ophthalmologists, any more than Otis can?
>
> Gee, Dave. Maybe it has something to do with all the hours that I've
> spent conversing with the teaching ophthalmologists and the faculty at
> several of the nation's leading optometry schools ... along with the,
> literally, scores of MD's and OD's that I've seen in my life.
>
> Ya' see, Ol' Davie Boy: you'll have to learn a thing or two about me:
Bunch of answers to questons I didn't ask deleted...
The statement by Otis still stands:
While most ODs support patients' abilities to learn about their condition,
there are a few who do not. I would say the case of the gentleman who was
"fired" by his cataract surgeon, for quesioning the choice of implant,
would support that claim.
My comment, while admittedly adding to the noise, was that you jumped on
Otis' correct and true statement, painting it with the same tarry brush
you use when he is indeed wrong. Similarly, when he stated that Dr, Judy
was correct, pclarkii had to jump in and bad-mouth him,
These are examples of what I termed "ad hominem" attacks: derogatory
comments made on the basis of *who said it*, not *what he said*.
Once again, I find myself mud-wrestling with pigs...
Neil Brooks
>Once again, I find myself mud-wrestling with pigs...
'Cept the difference here is: you're mud-wrestling with the ones who
DON'T HURT anybody.
Your choice of sides confounds me.
Dave Bell
Of course it does! That's because you won't acknowledge that your
blather about Otis is serving nothing except your own ego.
Neil Brooks
I believe we've already covered the "Ever seen double for any
substantial length of time, Dave?" question, so ... meanwhile ...
either take your OWN advice and kill-file me OR ... piss off.
If you think it's about my ego, then--again--you haven't been stuck
with double vision (Yes, Dan, I know YOU have).
If you think preying on adolescents (those on "the threshold") is
cool, then YOU (Mr. I Adopt Former Soviet Block Children) and I have
different views about kids, and about society's need to protect them
from predators--older men who, themselves, are at a (very different)
"threshold."
I think I'm done with you. Take care now.
Buh-bye.
Dan Abel
Dave Bell <db...@TheSPAMFREEBells.net> wrote:
blather about Neil is serving nothing except your own ego.
MsBrainy via MedKB.com
>
>Once again, I find myself mud-wrestling with pigs...
Dave, if you don't want to mud-wrestle with pigs, then don't... it's your
choice, nobody is forcing you to jump in to the puddle, so don't complain.
You are doing exactly the same thing you accuse others of doing. It's just
your choice of side in this never-ending debate that is puzzling...
--
MsBrainy
Message posted via MedKB.com
http://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/vision/200706/1
Dr Judy
In Otis defense (never thought I would type that), you did state your
refractive error was +1.00 and +4.50 which would be corrected with
plus lense. Although I have no idea what Otis meant by " according to
Donder's theory".
Dr Judy
>
> The OD DID say why he gave me minus lenses...b/c it corrects the
> refractive error. Unlike the "Donder's theory" Otis apparently
> subscribes to, which would probably get me killed w/in an hour of
> recieving my lenses. I'd probably walk into a bus...- Hide quoted text -
MsBrainy via MedKB.com
>I'e got this extremely weird problem: My refractive errors are as
>such:
>
>OS: +1.00D
>OD: +4.50D
Is this YOUR determination of your refractive error, or is it the Rx written
by your optomerist?
>
>Now, my OD gave my, as you would expect, a -1.00D lens for the left
>eye, and a -4.50D lens for my right eye.
I suspect there is a matter of terminology here. You stated that you are
myopic. It seems that you determined a "refractive error" as the negative of
the prescription, which (apparently according to your way of thinking) will
zero your error and thus correct it. My understanding is that this is not
the conventional way of expressing refractive error, but what do I know, I am
not an optometrist. Anyway, I believe that this is the source of the
confusion here.
>But the left eye only gets
>slightly better, while I can't notice anything w/ my right eye.
>But...when I swap the left and right lenses, my left eye becomes
>20/20, and my right eye, while still far from that, gets a small
>improvement. How can this be? Also, when I put the new left eye lens
>on my right eye, and flip it backwards, aside from it needing a slight
>power adjustment and a weird fisheye effect, my right eye is noticebly
>improved. What's with this?
This swapping and flipping stuff is even more confusing... If your glasses do
not give you the needed vision correction, obviously something is wrong
despite all the optometrist "assurances". It's possible that the glasses fit
the Rx, but the Rx is wrong to begin with. IMHO you need a new (perhaps
independent) vision exam. Again, I am not an optometrist.
>
>Thank you!!!!
Dave Bell
> Dave Bell wrote:
>> Once again, I find myself mud-wrestling with pigs...
>
> Dave, if you don't want to mud-wrestle with pigs, then don't... it's your
> choice, nobody is forcing you to jump in to the puddle, so don't complain.
> You are doing exactly the same thing you accuse others of doing. It's just
> your choice of side in this never-ending debate that is puzzling...
I was indeed lecturing myself about wrestling pigs. High time I gave up.
But I'm not really taking sides, you see. I'd would simply prefer to see
the vacuous bitching silenced. I note that I don't see much in the way
of similar attacks *from Otis*. He may be wrong, and arguably giving
harmful advice, but he doesn't commonly engage in the kind of slurs the
"other side" does.
Dave
Dave Bell
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 17:30:54 -0700, Dave Bell
> <db...@TheSPAMFREEBells.net> wrote:
>
>> Neil Brooks wrote:
>>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 15:28:53 -0700, Dave Bell
>>>
>>>> Once again, I find myself mud-wrestling with pigs...
>>> 'Cept the difference here is: you're mud-wrestling with the ones who
>>> DON'T HURT anybody.
>>>
>>> Your choice of sides confounds me.
>> Of course it does! That's because you won't acknowledge that your
>> blather about Otis is serving nothing except your own ego.
>
> I believe we've already covered the "Ever seen double for any
> substantial length of time, Dave?" question, so ... meanwhile ...
> either take your OWN advice and kill-file me OR ... piss off.
>
> If you think it's about my ego, then--again--you haven't been stuck
> with double vision (Yes, Dan, I know YOU have).
And how are your attacks helping your diplopia, hmm?
Or anyone else's, for that matter?
Are you blaming Otis for *causing* your vision problems?
Are you admitting to being that gullible?
> If you think preying on adolescents (those on "the threshold") is
> cool, then YOU (Mr. I Adopt Former Soviet Block Children) and I have
> different views about kids, and about society's need to protect them
> from predators--older men who, themselves, are at a (very different)
> "threshold."
Now, once again, for all to see, you're engaging in groundless innuendo
that serves only to attack *me*, not my arguments!
And, Mr. Able To Follow A Munged Email Address (nearly as well as most
13-year olds, I suspect), what the FUCK do my daughters have to do with
this discussion? I am supremely proud of all of them, and hold them as
higher examples of citizens than whining ego-trippers like you.
Neil Brooks
Maybe you'd like to think about how you would feel if somebody -- to
borrow your poetic talents -- FUCKED with your children's vision ...
or any other aspect of their health ... without you knowing it ... and
caused them harm ... because they naively took advice from some Uncle
Otie type when they were concerned about a medical problem.
That's called empathy, Ol' Davie Boy. It's the ability to feel what
THAT parent would feel when some senile-dementia old (again: to use
your word) FUCK intervened without training, soul, liability, license,
or conscience.
Even if you don't think your kids are capable of that kind of
naivety ... other kids are. Maybe I've just heard from one too many
of them ... and give more of a (once again) FUCK about them than you.
Next time, try thinking about it as a concerned parent of one of your
precious kids. Maybe you'll realize who's benevolent and who's
malevolent here.
Or maybe not.
In either case: piss off, Davie Boy. You're blowing without even the
PRETEXT of a good cause. Think about THAT for a while.
Neil Brooks
And the kindly old man in the Cadillac who lures kids in the car seems
awfully nice, doesn't he.
Want your kids playing with him?
Me neither.
Piss off, Dave.
Dave Bell
Nope. I trained mine to think.
But I guess i had an advantage, there...
> Me neither.
>
> Piss off, Dave.
Same to you, sweetie...
otis...@pa.net
It will eventually be the "young" who begin to accept
PREVENTIVE methods. Using a strong-minus, is
like "bleeding" a person to "solve problems".
Obviously the people doing the "bleeding" thought
it was WONDERFUL. As far as the "adults" posting
here -- consider this:
"When adults first become conscious of something new, they
usually either attack it or try to escape from it... Attack
includes such mild forms as ridicule, and escape includes merely
putting it out of mind."
W. I. Beveridge
I have NEVER said that prevention will be easy. I just
suggest that is COULD be possible, if the person
has the motivation for it -- on the threshod.
Further, prevention must depend on the wisdom and
judgment of the person himself. There are people
here who insist that EVERYTHING MUST BE PERFECT
BEFORE ANYTHING IS ATTEMPTED. Or:
Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections
must be first overcome.
Samuel Johnson
And tragically, these people who are taught a blindness,
have difficulty seening ANYTHING differently. Or accurately:
Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the
limits of the world.
Arthur Schopenhauer
Enjoy our discussions -- learning to respect science
and the dynamic behavior of the natural eye.
Otis
On Jun 22, 8:09 am, Kisame Hoshigaki
<absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 21 Jun, 22:28, Dave Bell <d...@TheSPAMFREEBells.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Neil Brooks wrote:
> Thank you for being the voice of sanity, reason, lucidity and
> intelligence around here. We teens really aren't as stupid as
> *somebody* in this discussion likes to think! And we would prefer it
> if this certain *somebody* would not extrapolate from a small sample
> (a couple of stupid/gullible kids) to the entire population.
>
> - KH- Hide quoted text -
Neil Brooks
>Dear Kisame Hoshigaki,
>
>It will eventually be the "young" who begin to accept
>PREVENTIVE methods. Using a strong-minus, is
>like "bleeding" a person to "solve problems".
But Uncle Otie:
What about all of the clinical testing that shows that undercorrection
can ACCELERATE myopic progression, and that plus lenses didn't help?
What about your own myopic niece, Joy Benson, who never wore the minus
and always wore the plus.
What about myopes like my wife whose Rx was stable for decades (prior
to refractive surgery).
What about evidence ... rather than faith?
> "When adults first become conscious of something new, they
>usually either attack it or try to escape from it... Attack
>includes such mild forms as ridicule, and escape includes merely
>putting it out of mind."
Actually, when adults first become conscious of an irrational,
dishonest idiot like Otis Brown, they soon learn that there IS NO WAY
to escape it.
Eventually, they attack it, hoping to either engage it in ACTUAL
DISCUSSION (which it refuses to do), or to get it to go away.
Largely because it's "merely out of its mind."
>I have NEVER said that prevention will be easy. I just
>suggest that is COULD be possible, if the person
>has the motivation for it -- on the threshod.
So Joy Benson is merely a slacker? That's how that works?
>Further, prevention must depend on the wisdom and
>judgment of the person himself.
So she's a dunce with low motivation, too? Why do you hate her?
> There are people
>here who insist that EVERYTHING MUST BE PERFECT
>BEFORE ANYTHING IS ATTEMPTED. Or:
What good is that mischaracterization going to do anybody? Why can't
you help JOY's vision ... or your own ... or Steve Leung's ... or Fred
Deakins's ... or anybody's, for that matter?
> Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections
>must be first overcome.
Actually, it would be nice if you would simply answer questions.
People who seek knowledge do this all the time. Faith-based, senile
zealots never do.
>And tragically, these people who are taught a blindness,
>have difficulty seening ANYTHING differently. Or accurately:
Pot ... kettle ... black.
>Enjoy our discussions -- learning to respect science
You and science have as much a nexus as a porn star and abstinence do.
Kisame Hoshigaki
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Neil Brooks wrote:
Thank you for being the voice of sanity and intelligence around here.
We teens are really not as dim-witted as *somebody* in this debate
DarkProtoman
>
> - Show quoted text -
Meanwhile, over in the optometric dimension, DarkProtoman is
questioning the science of optometry and it's practitioners as to
their ability to keep on task...
Neil Brooks
>Meanwhile, over in the optometric dimension, DarkProtoman is
>questioning the science of optometry and it's practitioners as to
>their ability to keep on task...
Bear in mind: you've only heard from one or two optometrists. The
rest of us have our own, individual interests in the topic.
I've always found it good to disclose whether or not one is in the
business. I'm not.
Many people feel that it's "buyer beware" and that any harm that
befalls you for following advice gleaned over the internet is just
tough luck. I consider those people to be heartless, soulless
cretins.
But that's just me.
Kisame Hoshigaki
>Many people feel that it's "buyer beware" and that any harm that
>befalls you for following advice gleaned over the internet is just
>tough luck.
This is another point on which I simply cannot agree with you.
Actually, I just think that if a parent has not educated their child
in such matters prior to allowing any usage of the internet, or if
they are not absolutely sure that the child does not have the
appropriate level of intellect nor maturity to question certain
treatment therapies that may be found across the net -- then they
should not have been allowed use of the internet at all.
You are a nice man, and no mistaking that. But I simply disagree with
your methods of "preaching" to the world about what a fagg0t Otis is
and blah blah blah... Please take into consideration what me, Dave,
Charles, and certain others are trying to explain -- that is that your
ad-hominem attacks serve no real purpose, and is only damaging this
newsgroup -- to you and the others on this forum that serve as the
current composition of the 'Otis hater' cadre.
My appreciation.
--
Live simply so that others may simply live
DarkProtoman
WTF?!!!!? This is *supposed* to be about my refractive error, *not*
about child internet safety!!!!!
Dr Judy
>
> Meanwhile, over in the optometric dimension, DarkProtoman is
> questioning the science of optometry and it's practitioners as to
> their ability to keep on task
Of the 50+ posts in this thread, under 10 were from optometrists and
they were largely on topic.
Dr Judy
DarkProtoman
Really? Get the non-ODs and non-MDs off this thread.
Neil Brooks
Well .... it sort of doesn't really work that way. It's Usenet ...
where there's no holds barred.
In between all the BS, though, you have Dr. Judy, PClark, Doctor Rick,
Mike Tyner, and a few others who are wise, caring, generous,
knowledgeable, and helpful.
There's just some sifting to be done on the way....
DarkProtoman
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yeah, I know.
I like going on to alt.philosophy and asking stupid questions. I cause
trouble for the soft sciences. Recently I asked them "what are the
ethics of creating a werecat?" It's fun to confuse those in the soft
sciences, b/c, at least in the hard sciences, like medicine,
optometry, and compsci, you can perform an experiment to in/validate a
proposition.
Neil Brooks
<Protom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I like going on to alt.philosophy and asking stupid questions. I cause
>trouble for the soft sciences. Recently I asked them "what are the
>ethics of creating a werecat?" It's fun to confuse those in the soft
>sciences, b/c, at least in the hard sciences, like medicine,
>optometry, and compsci, you can perform an experiment to in/validate a
>proposition.
Or ... you can be Otis Brown and either perform NO experiment OR
perform a crappy experiment and lie about the results ;-)
DarkProtoman
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 17:06:35 -0700, DarkProtoman
>
He really does this? Like what "experiments" has he "performed" and
what "data" did he "collect" and "analyze"?
Neil Brooks
The easiest example:
He claims to have prevented myopia in his nephew, Keith, by having him
wear "plus" lenses from adolescence, and avoiding the minus lens.
Keith, allegedly, is now an emmetrope (20/20 vision).
Otis tells this story constantly.
Less well known, however, is that Keither has a sister, Joy. Joy,
too, wore the plus lens and eschewed the minus.
Unfortunately, Joy Benson is now myopic with a restricted driver's
license.
Otis doesn't ever talk about her. She's sort of the black sheep of
the family now.
So ... he takes (fallacious) credit for having saved his nephew's
vision ... but won't take blame for having ruined his niece's.
Take a look at these questions. They'll give you an idea of the holes
in Otis's ... um ... "logic" through which one could drive a large
truck:
http;//www.nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt
Faced with critical thinking or logic, Otis simply cowers.
DarkProtoman
>
> - Show quoted text -
ROFLMAO!!!!!!
See what I was talking about on alt.philosophy
Think it could happen? What would the ethical implications be?
Hopefully, the rest of humanity will view it as a rare animal to be
kept as a pet rather than a monster or, even worse, free laborers.
Neil Brooks
<otis...@pa.net> wrote:
>Subject: About our friend Brooks -- whose
>mind is in the past.
>
>It must be the young who learn how to solve old
>problems as this man suggests:
What about your young niece, Joy Benson? What happened to her?? After
you experimented on her, to test your theory, she wound up as a myope
with a restricted driver's license.
How come you don't talk about her?
Ms.Brainy
>
>
> Further, Einstein said:
>
> Imagination is more important that knowledge...knowledge is
> limited but imagination circles the world. To see with one's own
> eyes, to feel and judge without succumbing to the suggestive power
> of the fashion of the day, to be able to express what one has seen
> and felt in a trim sentence or even a cunningly wrought word...is
> that not glorious? When I examine myself and my methods of
> thought, I come close to the conclusion that the gift of
> imagination has meant more to me than my talent for absorbing
> absolute knowledge.
>
> Albert Einstein
>
Dear Otis,
The imagination mentioned by Einstein is his, not yours. He didn't
glorify the imagination of the mentally limited and delusional, but
rather described his own genius intuitive thought process.
You are not a genius, Otis. Recognizing this fact will significantly
improve your mental health.
p.cl...@gmail.com
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Neil Brooks wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 08:54:43 -0700, "otisbr...@pa.net"
> > <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
>
> > >Most ophthamologists support your ability
> > >to learn about this subject.
>
> > >Others (tragically) do not trust your
> > >technical ability.
>
>
> > On what basis do you make THAT claim.
>
> > Just some little tidbit that you pulled from your a$$?
>
> > Par for the course, sadly.
>
> Are you saying that is not true, Neil? How can you speak for all
> ophthalmologists, any more than Otis can?
>
> even *correct* and supportive statements, as pclarkii did earlier...
>
> Dark Protoman, you'll just have to learn to live with the poor S/N of this
> group. By all means, tune out Otis' extreme and misleading views, but
> you'll also have to learn to ognore the whiners.
>
> Dave
Dave, I've discovered your problem. First remove the corn cob, then
get a life.
p.cl...@gmail.com
> was correct, pclarkii had to jump in and bad-mouth him,
certainly even YOU should appreciate it when amateur eye doctor and
theologian Otis Engineer feels it important to reaffirm to the whole
newsgroup that a statement made by a licensed optometrist is correct.
or perhaps you don't get it.
>
> Once again, I find myself mud-wrestling with pigs...
yes-- there you go again. doesn't it seem a little hypocritical of
you to call us mud-wrestling pigs when you're sitting right next to
us, covered with mud, criticizing our posts? you're becoming infamous
Dave.
p.cl...@gmail.com
> Now, once again, for all to see, you're engaging in groundless innuendo
> that serves only to attack *me*, not my arguments!
>
> And, Mr. Able To Follow A Munged Email Address (nearly as well as most
> 13-year olds, I suspect), what the FUCK do my daughters have to do with
> this discussion? I am supremely proud of all of them, and hold them as
> higher examples of citizens than whining ego-trippers like you.
oink oink oink
p.cl...@gmail.com
> We teens are really not as dim-witted as *somebody* in this debate
teens, huh. give us a break. which of your personas is the teen--
Kisame, Kaze, Zetsu, ' , Neil Crooks, William Horatio Bates, etc. etc.
Dave Bell
Which has been *my* point, all along!
Dave Bell
More critical thinking:
Otis' treatment of his nephew had no actual benefit - he was deluding
himself, and the treatment had no effect.
*THEREFOR* his failure to benefit his niece is completely due to his
non-functional treatment.
Yep, that's good logic for ya...
p.cl...@gmail.com
the subject of this thread is DarkProtoman's refractive problems, not
you justifying your earlier criticism of other posters.
Oink Oink Oink. i like it when your little pink tail curls like that.
Dave Bell
You clearly have no appreciation of American satirical commentary.
cf. Samuel Clemens, aka Mark Twain
Dave Bell
> Dave, I've discovered your problem. First remove the corn cob, then
> get a life.
And I should be taking life advice from a mudbug?
Take a Zatarain's bath...
p.cl...@gmail.com
do you enjoy reading your remarks in this newsgroup? does it serve
your ego?
Oink!
otis...@pa.net
Subject: Discussing the natural eye's proven behavior
with my nephew.
It is clear from more than five studies, that the natural
(but un-protected) eye goes down at a rate of
-1/2 diopter per year. The initial "induction" of a
negative refractive STATE is because the natural
eye controls its refractive STATE to its average
value of accommodation.
Thus our eyes are limited in the way we use them -- like
it or not.
At about age 11 and 13 (I believe) they had an optometric
exam an were declared to be "myopic".
I discussed the above, and other information, an
suggested they had a choice in this matter, and the
goal should be to:
1. Avoid the use of the minus lens.
2. Pass the DMV level tests.
3. Check their own Snellen.
All of this was predicated on both their interest
and motivation. (Very difficult for most.)
In college (West Point and Annapolis), the refractive
STATE goes down at a slower rate, about -1/3 diopters
per year. (The average for SLIGHTLY myopic students
was between -1.1 diopters to -1.6 diopters over four years).
Thus, if they were to avoid ENTRY into serious myopic
(avoid the minus lens -- except for driving), then it
would be wise to "take control", and preserve their
distant vision.
With no preventive efforts, and a strong minus lens,
I have no doubt (based on these statistics, and the
primate studies) that they both would be about
-2 to -5 diopters mopic at the completion of
college and graduate school.
Layman Neil Brooks has NO IDEA of anthing
he is talking about. He does not know them,
he is not qualified to talk about ANY MEDICAL
CONDITION, and about people he does not know.
Keith ran the Ironman, an has the desire and interst
to protect his distant vision. He did this on the
basis of HIS wise understanding of these issues.
I simply supplied this second-opinion information
to him, and he chose the "high road" to protect
his distant vision.
I think Joy missed one line on the DMV test.
She has NO INTEREST in her distant vision.
She got a WEAK minus to meet the legal requirements,
and I recommended that she alway MEET the legal
requirment, but never wear that minus unless
required. (Given a lack of interest in her part.)
Brooks likes to imply that she is a -7 diopter myope,
and legally blind without glasses. This is of course
his "made up" bull-shit line.
The majority-opinion ODs can tell you that having
a SLIGHT negative refractive STATE is an ADVANTAGE
as you approach 40 years of age.
The range of accommodation (stop to stop) reduces
to about 2 to 1 diopters.
Thus, my discussion with my neice was that she
had the best of both worlds, i.e., she will be
able to work with no lens for near or far, probably
through the age of sixty or more.
So, she will keep the minus on the dash, and
will avoid the use of ANY LENS, plus or minus,
for a long time into the future.
If she had NOT used the plus through the
school years, there is no doubt that she
would be -6 diopters myopic, and wearing
that minus 16 hours / 7 days a week.
And lastly, you must remember that some ODs,
while unable to help the public with plus-prevention,
wake up, and insist that their own child wear the
plus, when the child's refractive STATE is zero.
They can't get the public to do this (for obvious reasons
of the ignorance of the public), but they can protect
their own child's vision for life.
That is the real meaning of the second-opinion.
Enjoy,
Otis
> Yep, that's good logic for ya...- Hide quoted text -
DoctorRick
degenerated. But you, who first started posting in this thread
criticizing others for being negative, have become worse than all the
others you complain about.
If only Otis, and the troll named "comma", Kaze, Zetsu, and a dozen
other screen names were to leave, things would get better quickly. I
believe they are the instigators whom others respond to.
Neil Brooks
>It is clear from more than five studies, that the natural
>(but un-protected) eye goes down at a rate of
>-1/2 diopter per year.
You never cite these studies.
Are you making them UP or lying about the findings?
Here's the USAF Academy Study, showing -- as I have stated -- that:
- Some myopes get more myopic
- Some myopes stay stable
- Some myopes get LESS myopic
Mike Tyner
<otis...@pa.net> wrote
> It is clear from more than five studies, that the natural
> (but un-protected) eye goes down at a rate of
> -1/2 diopter per year.
So the 75% of Caucasians who don't - are they "unnatural?"
>The initial "induction" of a
> negative refractive STATE is because the natural
> eye controls its refractive STATE to its average
> value of accommodation.
So why don't farsighted people get better?
> Thus, if they were to avoid ENTRY into serious myopic
> (avoid the minus lens -- except for driving), then it
> would be wise to "take control", and preserve their
> distant vision.
I saw a 9 year old girl yesterday who "avoided minus" lenses for her entire
9 years. She was -3.25.
> With no preventive efforts, and a strong minus lens,
> I have no doubt (based on these statistics, and the
> primate studies) that they both would be about
> -2 to -5 diopters mopic at the completion of
> college and graduate school.
You should have more doubts.
-MT
Dr Judy
> It is clear from more than five studies, that the natural
> (but un-protected) eye goes down at a rate of
> -1/2 diopter per year.
Are you referring to the rate of change in myopia in the control
groups of bifocal studies? The data gives the rates of change for
myopic eyes, largely in groups aged under 16 who were myopic before
the study started. The ranges were large with large standard
deviation, so the "average" rate is not very meaningful in predicting
an individual's rate. And the "protected eyes" (those using plus at
near) changed at virtually the same rate; there was an initial saving
of about 0.50D progression in the first year and no savings in
subsequent years.
> The initial "induction" of a
> negative refractive STATE is because the natural
> eye controls its refractive STATE to its average
> value of accommodation.
There is no evidence in the studies to support this statement. If it
were true, how do you explain the existence of hyperopia?
Dr Judy
p.cl...@gmail.com
when you ask Otis to explain the existence of hyperopia in the
framework of his theory, and also to explain why uncorrected myopes
become even more myopia sometimes, he'll just cut-and-run.
his mind is made up. don't confuse him with facts!
DarkProtoman
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, no...maybe we can overload his neocortex and cause it to GPF. Then
he won't be able to bother us again.
Why does Otis want me to be seeing +9.00D in my right eye, and +2.00D
in my left? I'll probably walk right into a bus 5 minutes after
picking up my glasses from the optician.
Neil Brooks
>Why does Otis want me to be seeing +9.00D in my right eye, and +2.00D
>in my left? I'll probably walk right into a bus 5 minutes after
>picking up my glasses from the optician.
It's not so much that he WANTS you to walk into a bus. It's really
more that he just couldn't give a $hit if/when you do.
Hope that clarifies things for you.
DarkProtoman
Maybe Otis is really a psychopathic serial killer, and this is how he
kills people --by making myopes like me use plus lenses instead of
minus lenses, which multiplies the refractive error, causing them to
get killed in horrible accidents.