| Otis Brown 2004-10-22, 10:08 pm |
| Dear Evaristo,
Subject: Bates -- the courage as a professional to "buck"
the system.
It is always difficult for a man in a profession to
turn around and state that the "standard method",
i.e., minus lens, creates more problems than
is solves.
Bates stated that is an eye is slightly negative,
i.e., 20/70, and you place a strong over-prescribed
minus lens on it, the very shortly that
natural eye will move more strongly in
a negative direction, achieveing 20/200
in a relatively short time.
How do you prove this statement about the
behavior of the natural eye -- on a scientific
(not medical) level.
Simple. You take a population of natural
primate eyes (monkey, not human) and place
1/2 in a more confined environment.
If the natural eye "moves negative" then
Bate's statement is confirmed.
If not, the traditional method of
"quick fixing" the eye with a
minus lens is "safe".
An accurate scientific judgment if you
ask me.
The experimental condition is clear,
and the results will always be the
same for the natural eye.
The problem? The ODs state that they
will intentionally ignore all proven
facts concerning the primate eye.
And Jan calls science of this nature
so much "bla..bla", and then
claims to be a skilled, impartial
scientest.
Do you take Jan's word for it -- or
do you take science seriously.
That is the question.
Best,
Otis
Engineer
Evaristo <evaristo.recalcati@email.it> wrote in message news:<a15in0p1giesmspvfqf3m8ehone3gakmv2@4ax.com>...
> On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 00:30:31 GMT, "Mike Tyner" <mtyner@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> ???
> Where exactly it is emotional ?
> Where are the false assumption ?
> Where is the sloppy logic ?
> Quote, please.
|