It's really sad
The Real Bev
Now it's just stupidity and wrangling. Isn't it possible to just
IGNORE the loons? It's an acquired skill which improves with practice
-- and the understanding of killfile concepts.
Pointing out idiocy to newcomers is no reason to respond to the loons
with explanations of reality. People are grownups, mostly, and if they
aren't capable of figuring out some stuff for themselves they probably
don't really deserve to be helped -- especially at the expense of
everyone else.
Useful information: The Algodones optometrists (and the dentists) have
greatly inflated their prices since I last posted about the good deals.
Last week the price quoted for basic bifocals in cheap frames was more
than my local discount optometrist (Linden, RIP) charged for the glasses
AND the exam.
SIL is going to Tecate now for dental work. She doesn't need glasses
any more because she had lasik in Algodones a couple of years ago and is
happy as a clam. Closer and cheaper.
Next time we need dental work we'll try Tecate and report back. Not
worth the drive (20 gallons) just for cheap glasses.
--
Cheers, Bev
--------------------------------------------
The stone age didn't end for lack of stones.
-- Troy the Troll
Dan Abel
The Real Bev <bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How this group died. When I started reading it it was helpful and fun.
> Now it's just stupidity and wrangling. Isn't it possible to just
> IGNORE the loons? It's an acquired skill which improves with practice
> -- and the understanding of killfile concepts.
>
> Pointing out idiocy to newcomers is no reason to respond to the loons
> with explanations of reality. People are grownups, mostly, and if they
> aren't capable of figuring out some stuff for themselves they probably
> don't really deserve to be helped -- especially at the expense of
> everyone else.
Some good points you brought up, Bev.
I still get useful information from this group, and I'm a quick reader
(good at skimming over stuff that I'm not too interested in).
Newsgroups are slowly dying. My ISP has always been a big supporter of
them. They have their own news server and post to groups. The CEO even
posts to their own groups. But they've just admitted that they need to
reach out on a web forum, and have started one. They'll still keep on
the groups, and support issues should be handled through their support
department, but they are trying out a web forum.
--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
da...@sonic.net
Neil Brooks
> Pointing out idiocy to newcomers is no reason to respond to the loons
> with explanations of reality. People are grownups, mostly, and if they
> aren't capable of figuring out some stuff for themselves they probably
> don't really deserve to be helped -- especially at the expense of
> everyone else.
And there's the point of our disagreement, Bev.
I think those people are the ones who MOST need help.
Otis has harmed NUMEROUS kids, because their parents equate mild
myopia to terminal cancer -- a fire that Otis fans constantly.
And he's helped exactly nobody. Ever.
The docs were leaving, because of Otis, long before *I* (, at least,)
EVER responded to him.
Not sure how long you've been around, but ... go way back, in the
archives, and check it out. Lack of response ... never alters his
posting habits.
The docs (and vision researchers) just got thoroughly sick of him,
years ago. They left in droves.
Otis will destroy the last embers of this newsgroup, whether responded
to or not.
THAT is what's been "at the expense of everyone else."
The only hope, then -- IMHO -- is to limit the *direct* damage he
does, by shining a bright light directly on him.
He's about 99% of the way toward this being an empty street corner,
where -- like most psychotic evangelists -- he preaches the gospel, at
the top of his lungs, to nobody.
Which means -- we're very close TO the point where there's nothing
here BUT harm -- harm that Otis causes.
Nope. Otis is not a troll. His actions are the actions of a mentally
ill person.
Trolls DO go away, when ignored. Otis doesn't.
riserman
Neil and everybody else,
Just filter out every message from Otis and repeatedly encourage
everybody else in this newsgroup to do the same, and the problem will be
solved. Otis will be effectively gone whether he sends messages or not.
There will be no reason to denounce him if he is not heard.
Then, and only then, will this group become useful once again.
riserman
Neil Brooks
>
> Neil and everybody else,
>
> Just filter out every message from Otis and repeatedly encourage
> everybody else in this newsgroup to do the same, and the problem will be
> solved. Otis will be effectively gone whether he sends messages or not.
>
> There will be no reason to denounce him if he is not heard.
>
> Then, and only then, will this group become useful once again.
Riserman,
As somebody who has received HUGE benefits FROM the long-lost denizens
of the s.m.v. deep -- I truly appreciate the spirit of your post and
Bev's, but it really just isn't quite so simple.
To ignore him is NOT to have any impact on his actions.
We know that.
To ignore him is simply to decide that -- as individuals and
collectively -- if this predator gets hold of prey -- we have to
declare it Darwinism, and let that/those poor soul(s) suffer the
consequences, while we look away.
Overwhelmingly, the same participants whose inclination is to want to
help people by participating ON this newsgroup, for absolutely NO
compensation, are not the sort of people who will readily abandon
children to the wolves.
Which has left them with no good option but TO leave.
At some point, the community's only recourse is to destroy the
predator, for the good of all concerned, or to abandon the community,
entirely.
MS
MASSIVELY IMPORTANT (yes, caps needed to emphasize) medical discoveries
Neil Brooks
> What's really sad is how the medical community sits back and ignores
> MASSIVELY IMPORTANT (yes, caps needed to emphasize) medical discoveries
Write to the optometry schools.
Mike Tyner is right: you genuinely do NOT have an audience, here, in a
position to do a damned thing about it.
And ... there is TONS of ongoing myopia research, all over the world,
aimed at prevention.
First result from a PubMed search:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21425488
If the two of you (obviously, you and Otis) had a shred of
intellectual honesty in your bones, you could very well have found a
receptive audience for honest discussion of the subject, here.
Instead of driving the entire audience away.
But between Otis's incalculable number of pathetic pathologies and
your naivete/dishonesty ... it's highly unlikely.
And ... if you STILL believe nothing is being done ... a PubMed search
will give you hundreds of names of vision researchers -- people to
whom you COULD address your adolescent ramblings....
MS
research HAS been done with MONUMENTAL IMPLICATIONS and is ignored
impaul
> It's not that research isn't being done, no doubt it is, it's that
> research HAS been done with MONUMENTAL IMPLICATIONS and is ignored
Fraud. The Bates method have been around for decades.
I've tried it & it was a wasted money for the book. Otis leaves out
many things that were stated in the book since he is just trying to
promote his name on the internet. Bates even say other methods
are OK if needed.
Oh, I'm wearing a plus lense now so expect that my vision should
improve dramatically to "perfection". The plus lenses have a name
as in reading glasses & computer glasses.
Neil Brooks
> Subject: Additional personal insights about a "formal study" and Bates
> 1913 study.
>
> Bates clearly restricted his study to visual acuity of from 20/30 to
> about 20/70. He also claimed success from that level. But he did not
> have these people "intellectually" involved, nor did he identify those
> who would have extreme motivation to achieve success. If there is
> ever to be a truly "open" preventive study, it must involve a person
> with great motivation (for starters) -- as well as the maturity to
> take personal responsiblity to
[most of the remaining drivel snipped]
Again, you're saying that your niece -- Joy Benson -- is (by your
definition) lazy and immature ?
That doesn't seem very nice.
But ... since your method didn't keep HER from becoming myopic, it's
the only logical conclusion to be drawn.
Mike Tyner
"Neil Brooks" <neil...@yahoo.com> wrote
> To ignore him is NOT to have any impact on his actions.
It hasn't been tried for a while.
-MT
Mike Tyner
"MS" <mrsun...@gmail.com> wrote
> What's really sad is how the medical community sits back and ignores
> MASSIVELY IMPORTANT (yes, caps needed to emphasize) medical discoveries
If you take college statistics and physiology you will know much more than
Dr. Bates knew.
You will think his assumptions were wrong.
You will think his conclusions were wrong.
"Just because it might work" doesn't win grant money.
So why do you whine about that?
You want your taxes spent proving a broken clock is right twice a day?
-MT
The Real Bev
> To ignore him is simply to decide that -- as individuals and
> collectively -- if this predator gets hold of prey -- we have to
> declare it Darwinism, and let that/those poor soul(s) suffer the
> consequences, while we look away.
I just sorted this group by 'From' going back to August 2010. Very few
posts by questioning newbies deserving of defense, but a lot of
wrangling in response to Otis and associates. Maybe newbies don't post,
but that's their problem. Maybe it IS Darwinism, and maybe Darwinism is
actually useful. And maybe there really isn't a lot you can do to make
dumb people smarter. You can possibly cure a little ignorance, but
that's about it.
> Overwhelmingly, the same participants whose inclination is to want to
> help people by participating ON this newsgroup, for absolutely NO
> compensation, are not the sort of people who will readily abandon
> children to the wolves.
That's correct, but I don't think they want to play an endless game of
Whack-a-Mole either.
> Which has left them with no good option but TO leave.
>
> At some point, the community's only recourse is to destroy the
> predator, for the good of all concerned, or to abandon the community,
> entirely.
Which is sort of like collective suicide to avoid giving the impression
that a loon is not a loon. I missed posts FOR WEEKS because I set a
filter to eliminate any thread in which Otis et al. posted. I saw no
posts for days, hence my original post in this thread. I'm reading now
in an unfiltered server.
How about, instead of actually arguing with whatever he says, pointing
to the wikipedia link <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bates_method> and
quoting only the end bit -- the entire article is VERY long.
Back when I or somebody else was doing a weekly warning post, did it
ever do any good? Probably not.
======= <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bates_method> ================
General criticisms
Dead-end
A frequent criticism of the Bates method is that it has remained
relatively obscure, which is seen as proof that it is not truly
effective. Writer Alan M. MacRobert concluded in a 1979 article that the
"most telling argument against the Bates system" and other alternative
therapies was that they "bore no fruit". In regards to the Bates method,
he reasoned that "If palming, shifting, and swinging could really cure
poor eyesight, glasses would be as obsolete by now as horse-drawn
carriages."[44] Others, including philosopher Frank J. Leavitt, have
argued that due to Bates' emphasis on relaxation and visualization,
application of his principles would depend heavily on each individual,
as with martial arts and yoga, and that the Bates method is therefore
not discredited simply by its failure to become mainstream.[16]
Corrective lenses and safety
Discarding one's corrective lenses, as Bates recommended, or wearing
lenses weaker than one's prescribed correction, as some Bates method
advocates suggest, poses a potential safety hazard in certain
situations, especially when one is operating a motor vehicle.[7] Most
teachers of the Bates method caution that when driving, one should wear
the correction legally required.[7]
Avoidance of conventional treatment
One of the greatest potential dangers of faith in the Bates method is
that a believer may be disinclined to seek medical advice regarding what
could be a sight-threatening condition requiring prompt treatment, such
as glaucoma.[5] Also, children with vision problems may require early
attention by a professional in order to successfully prevent lazy eye.
Such treatment may include exercises, but which are different from those
associated with the Bates method, and parents who subscribe to Bates'
ideas may delay seeking conventional care until it is too late.[7] It
may further be necessary for a child at risk of developing lazy eye to
wear the proper correction.[45]
===========================
--
Cheers,
Bev
============================================
"People are too stupid to realize they are."
--JoHn DoH KeLm
The Real Bev
to have propagated...
Corrective lenses and safety
Avoidance of conventional treatment
--
Cheers, Bev
======================================================
All the toilets were stolen out of the police station.
The police have nothing to go on.
Pikov Andropov
> On May 25, 9:40�am, The Real Bev <bashley...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Pointing out idiocy to newcomers is no reason to respond to the loons
>> with explanations of reality. �People are grownups, mostly, and if they
>> aren't capable of figuring out some stuff for themselves they probably
>> don't really deserve to be helped -- especially at the expense of
>> everyone else.
>
>
> And there's the point of our disagreement, Bev.
>
> I think those people are the ones who MOST need help.
Bev probably thinks that the folsk who got suckered into taking out
mprtagages that they could not afford on houses they could not afford
don't deserve to be helped!
Neil Brooks
:-)
I've "known" Bev, through this group, for quite a few years, not.
I think she's a fully/genuinely/decently good egg.
We just disagree on this one, is all ;-)
Neil Brooks
Uncle Otie really isn't a Bates method advocate, though.
He will latch on to just about any kernel of anything he can, in order
to draw the unsuspecting into his lair.
And ... his faulty logic, blatant lies, and interminable lies of
omission ... like so many things in the repertoire of the
charlatan ... sound pretty seductive TO the unknowing and trusting.
I don't particularly think the Bates Method is going to hurt anybody
-- well ... except for that staring at the sun stuff.
In fact ... Bates -- like many other (including far, far simpler)
methods CAN manage accommodative spasm.
No. Otis's drug of choice is the plus lens.
Talking about anything else IS just HIS way to get them into the
Cadillac, where he can cause them harm with the only arrow in his
quiver: the plus lens.
Not knowing, and intentionally avoiding learning (or lacking the
capacity TO learn), ANYTHING about the interplay between accommodation
and convergence, is but ONE of the MANY things that makes Otis a
dangerous idiot.
His target audience IS kids, too.
By definition, they're the ones whose neurological mechanisms for
fusion are less likely to be fully formed.
That's why his advice HAS induced double vision in at least a DOZEN
kids -- and that's only the ones I could identify, and whose parents I
could reach, without any real effort.
[Who knows how many others are out there, who curse his name, but --
luckily -- probably don't seek ophthalmologic/optometric advice, over
the Internet ;-)]
Uncle Otie would rather get AT these kids WITHOUT the "nuisance" of a
concerned (and, hopefully, a bit more savvy) parent, but he'll work
the parent if he must, using most of the markers of those who try to
foment cults.
You should SEE the "full-court press" when some adolescent finds Otis
(or vice versa), and nobody's monitoring the situation. It's
downright sick.
And ... since most parents probably don't know much more THAN Otis
about things like CA:C and AC:A ratios ... their kids ARE at risk.
This is a situation where I really DO like that Oscar Wilde quote:
“Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable people
attempt to adapt the world to themselves. All progress, therefore,
depends on unreasonable people.”
While Otis would claim that HE'S the one on whom progress depends, any
educated person can see that ... well ... he's a pathological liar, a
rank hypocrite, and an abject idiot.
No more. No less.
His approach -- grounded in his well-documented pathology (Childhood
dreams of becoming a commercial pilot, dashed by his high myopia.
Becomes pathologically obsessed with myopia for the rest of his life)
is the antithesis of science.
No. In this case, I think YOUR position is perfectly reasonable,
but ... I'll take the other side, in Wilde's philosophy.
Incidentally, I've decided to refrain from responding TO Uncle Otis
for a month (well underway).
We'll see if -- at THIS point -- it makes any difference in his
activities, on s.m.v.
He may well BE BOTH a troll AND a mentally ill person. The two are
certainly not mutually exclusive :-)
Otis
It was not Oscard Wilde
++++++
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed
citizens can change the world. Indeed it's the only thing that
ever has.
Margaret Mead
Enjoy,
Otis
See:
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the
unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
George B. Shaw
> > certainly not mutually exclusive :-)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
MS
> Bev,
>
> Uncle Otie really isn't a Bates method advocate, though.
>
> He will latch on to just about any kernel of anything he can, in order
> to draw the unsuspecting into his lair.
>
> And ... his faulty logic, blatant lies, and interminable lies of
> omission ... like so many things in the repertoire of the
> charlatan ... sound pretty seductive TO the unknowing and trusting.
>
> I don't particularly think the Bates Method is going to hurt anybody
> -- well ... except for that staring at the sun stuff.
And that's why people FAIL with the Bates method, because like you,
they're SCARED of the sun
Neil Brooks
Nah. I did what they told me to do -- any and all of it. 100%
compliance ... just as I promised them.
Nothing changed.
You really do sound an awful lot like Otis (who blames ALL failures
with HIS method on inadequate smarts, and/or motivation).
You should reflect deeply on that. That's one of the biggest insults
one can pay another.
MS
> On Jun 7, 12:06 pm, MS <mrsunga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 7, 1:46 am, Neil Brooks <neil0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Bev,
>
> > > Uncle Otie really isn't a Bates method advocate, though.
>
> > > He will latch on to just about any kernel of anything he can, in order
> > > to draw the unsuspecting into his lair.
>
> > > And ... his faulty logic, blatant lies, and interminable lies of
> > > omission ... like so many things in the repertoire of the
> > > charlatan ... sound pretty seductive TO the unknowing and trusting.
>
> > > I don't particularly think the Bates Method is going to hurt anybody
> > > -- well ... except for that staring at the sun stuff.
>
> > And that's why people FAIL with the Bates method, because like you,
> > they're SCARED of the sun
>
> Nah. I did what they told me to do -- any and all of it. 100%
> compliance ... just as I promised them.
"They" are useless, how's about you and everyone else just READ what's
in the book and magazines - what Bates HIMSELF wrote and IGNORE the
bates teachers. They're here FOR FREE:
http://www.mediafire.com/?2lyy1jznmv1
http://www.mediafire.com/?o4tmmyyyn0m
Neil Brooks
MS
Thanks, proud to be an evangelist. It doesn't make sense to complain
that the "Bates method" "doesn't work" when you HAVEN'T SEEN OR TRIED
what's in HIS VERY OWN published work.
impaul
Wrong. Some cannot SEE to drive their cars. If you can't see the
big "E" unless you are 1 foot or less from the chart, your eyesight
is too bad for the Bates method which said that you should not
wear eyeglasses on a daily basis. He**, when you can't even see
well enough to cook or read the instructions for microwaving, the
Bates already failed.
MS
> On 2011-06-07, MS <mrsunga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 7, 1:46 am, Neil Brooks <neil0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Bev,
>
> >> Uncle Otie really isn't a Bates method advocate, though.
>
> >> He will latch on to just about any kernel of anything he can, in order
> >> to draw the unsuspecting into his lair.
>
> >> And ... his faulty logic, blatant lies, and interminable lies of
> >> omission ... like so many things in the repertoire of the
> >> charlatan ... sound pretty seductive TO the unknowing and trusting.
>
> >> I don't particularly think the Bates Method is going to hurt anybody
> >> -- well ... except for that staring at the sun stuff.
>
> > And that's why people FAIL with the Bates method, because like you,
> > they're SCARED of the sun
>
> Wrong. Some cannot SEE to drive their cars.
Then you either DON'T DRIVE or DON'T ATTEMPT the treatment
Otis
http://www.central-fixation.com/bates-medical-articles/myopia-prevention-teachers.php
MYOPIA PREVENTION BY TEACHERS.
By W. H. BATES, M.D.,
New York
Myopia with elongation of the eyeball is incurable. It is usually
acquired during school life.
Dr. Bates did not have
1) Primate research of the dynamic behavior of the natural eye --
that only developed much later -- as pure science and,
2) The kids were too young to follow any "instructions"
3) Any future study must include the personal educated wisdom of the
individual -- about how to be in control of his own refractive STATE
-- i.e., making measurements and
4) The use of his own trial-lens kit -- as part of an engineering
scientific effort an study.
In fact, (for people who actually do research), it is clear that the
second-opinion suggests that PREVENTION is prossible, provided the
person can still pass the 20/60 line, and has a refractive STATE
better than -1.0 diopters. This the person himself would measure.
That would avoid the intense bias of the majority-opinion on the
science of the natural eye's proven behavior.
The optometrist Arnold Sherman suggests that prevention (with the plus
-- under the above circumstance) would be possible.
Enjoy,
> what's in HIS VERY OWN published work.- Hide quoted text -
impaul
That's why the Bates FAIL. It isn't that people are "afraid" of the
sun as you lied.
MS
That's like saying you'll "fail" an exam you never take in the first
place. If you can't take the exam you haven't "failed"it, you just
haven't taken it yet.
Otis
Dr. Sherman publised a paper on "plus-prevention". I believe that we
should all be aware of this change in attitude about prevention that
must be developed in the future. Here are my commentary on this
semminal scientific paper supporting plus-prevention.
+++++++++
Subject: The “Sherman” paper corrects some false impressions.
If you advocate “change” – (use of the plus at the threshold for the
purpose of prevention) you are called a “crack-pot, idiot, anti-
science, etc.). Dr. Sherman states the concept of prevention
accurately.
I think that the Sherman paper should go along way to correcting that
impression.
1) Optometry is not monolithic (i.e., there is a second-opinion
that objects to the minus lens).
2) Second-opinion ODs strongly support the idea that a plus
should be stated, before a person’s refractive state goes below -1.5
diopters. (about 20/60 on Snellen).
3) Success is claimed for this type of work – provided the
person will take it seriously, and actually make dedicated use of a
plus (and other “therapy” at that point.)
Second-opinion best,
On Jun 7, 5:19 pm, Otis <otisbr...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
> For those interested -- here is what Dr. Bates attempted:
>
> http://www.central-fixation.com/bates-medical-articles/myopia-prevent...
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
impaul
Can't take an exam as won't be able to see it with the Bates
method. I knew I would "fail" the heart treadmill test before
taking it; but took it anyway & failed as I knew.
MS
So do you BLAME the heart treadmill test for "failing to work" or
yourself for not being fit enough? With your logic you'd blame the
test.
Otis
As per Dr. Bates 1913 study -- you confirm success by passing the
required line on the Snellen.
Why do you have a problem with that??
> test.- Hide quoted text -
Otis
Tragically "medicine" is simply not "objective science". It is often
"cut and try" where something that works instantly and sells --
becomes "standard practice". It is very hard for anyone "in practice"
to deviate from that basic philosophy, and the concept of "anti-
prescription" gasses that don't produce any "instant effect" -- are
rejected for exactly that reason.
It takes a wise person to figure that truth out -- it seems. But
there are now "brave" objective optometrists who will tell you the
same truth that some has discovered.
Here is the second-opinion of a highly qualified professional, Dr.
Arnold Sherman. He paper: "Myopia can often be PREVENTED, CONTROLLED
or ELIMINATED" is objective science.
If you are not driving a car -- you not have to pass the 20/40 line
on that electronic Snellen. Dr. Sherman states:
"My approach for adaptive un-compensated myopes is as follows"
1. No distance lens "correction"
2. Nearpoint lens prescription (he means plus lens. OSB) for prolonged
reading
(more than 20 mintes) in single vision form. etc.
While some ODs will disparage this type of preventive approach -- it
is wise to
understand it.
It is wise to understand that the standard "down" rate for the
average normal
eye is about -1/2 diopter per year for each kid at grade one through
grade 12.
This is part of the reason Dr. Sherman makes this stark statment that
to avoid the
minus -- one must habitually wear the plus for prevention.
I know that the concept is perhaps "difficult", but I personally wish
that I had
a wise optometrist helping me with prevention -- when it could have
been
effective.
Prevention best,
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
impaul
The treadmill isn't a fake like the Bates Method. The Bates method
want to have more killers on the road who cannot see.
Have you stared at the sun without any filters for any length of time?
MS
If you CAN'T SEE TO DRIVE then DON'T DRIVE.
> Have you stared at the sun without any filters for any length of time?
Of course, here's good video about sungazing:
Mike Tyner
"MS" <mrsun...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Have you stared at the sun without any filters for any length of time?
> Of course, here's good video about sungazing:
Yikes. You need to work on your bullshit filter.
"If you've got adrenal fatigue you probably have liver fatigue too.
" -Magnus Mulliner
It is reckless to stare at the sun.
-MT
MS
> "MS" <mrsunga...@gmail.com> wrote
Tell that to the thousands of sungazers.
Mike Tyner
"MS" <mrsun...@gmail.com> wrote
> Tell that to the thousands of sungazers.
Why? Are they suddenly going to learn physics?
Solar retinopathy is imaginary.
Macular degeneration is a fictional ailment.
Actinic keratosis never happens.
-MT
MS
> "MS" <mrsunga...@gmail.com> wrote
Yep, they've all gone blind.
Otis
Dr. Bates had his ideas -- truly appreciated as the second-opinion.
Here is a new book on prevention for your interest.
http://www.kaisuviikari.com/book/COMPLETE-BOOK_KV_MYOPIA_PREVENTION_ENG_12-2010_3rd_edition.pdf
Enjoy,