Vision - Contacts lens worries

Author

Contacts lens worries

Tony McBride

2004-10-27, 7:08 am

Hi,

I've got a bit of a strange question to ask but i'm quite an anxious sort of
person so that probably explains it!
Basically I've always wanted to wear contacts ever since I started wearing
my glasses. I tried them a few years back and found I couldnt get them in my
eye easily so gave up. A few months back I decided to bite the bullet and
give it another go.

The good news is that I stuck with it and can now pop them in and out fairly
easily. However I haven't really built my wear time up beyond 3 hours since
I'm a bit worried that the lenses are getting dry and will get stuck to my
eye. I wear ciba focus dailies and find they get a bit itchy after 2 or 3
hours - is this just a sign of getting used to them or should I be taking
them out? My optician saw my eyes after a few hours and said they seemed to
move well when I blink. Also, my eyes don't get red when the contacts feel
uncomfortable.

To be honest I think its to do with a story I heard about someone having a
contact lens stuck and having to have it removed at the hospital with some
kind of spatula. This has me worried a little so i'm a bit reticient about
keeping them in for longer than a few hours.

Any advice or reassurance would be much appreciated.

Thanks,

Tony

Mike Tyner

2004-10-27, 11:09 am

"Tony McBride" <NOSPAMtonetonemcbride@hotmail.com> wrote

> My optician saw my eyes after a few hours and said they seemed to
> move well when I blink. Also, my eyes don't get red when the contacts feel
> uncomfortable.

Lenses that move _too much_ feel dry. The dry feeling increases the longer
you wear them.

Ciba dailies are great, but some people have to try several different lenses
to find the one that works best.

-MT

Evaristo

2004-10-27, 7:11 pm

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 12:50:21 +0100, "Tony McBride"
<NOSPAMtonetonemcbride@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I've got a bit of a strange question to ask but i'm quite an anxious sort of
>person so that probably explains it!
>Basically I've always wanted to wear contacts ever since I started wearing
>my glasses. I tried them a few years back and found I couldnt get them in my
>eye easily so gave up. A few months back I decided to bite the bullet and
>give it another go.
>
>The good news is that I stuck with it and can now pop them in and out fairly
>easily. However I haven't really built my wear time up beyond 3 hours since
>I'm a bit worried that the lenses are getting dry and will get stuck to my
>eye. I wear ciba focus dailies and find they get a bit itchy after 2 or 3
>hours - is this just a sign of getting used to them or should I be taking
>them out? My optician saw my eyes after a few hours and said they seemed to
>move well when I blink. Also, my eyes don't get red when the contacts feel
>uncomfortable.
>
>To be honest I think its to do with a story I heard about someone having a
>contact lens stuck and having to have it removed at the hospital with some
>kind of spatula. This has me worried a little so i'm a bit reticient about
>keeping them in for longer than a few hours.
>
>Any advice or reassurance would be much appreciated.

Jesus Christ.

Listen to your body, that seems to have a little more intelligence
than you. Stop this nonsense right away !

Learn how not to strain to see and throw away glasses
contacts and surgery.

Close your eyes and while you rest them imagine some
color that you readily can imagine. Imagine the object
you are remembering to have a small short constant
swing from side to side. While doing this move your
head from side to side. Do this for at least 20 minutes
and become aware of what is wrong with your eyes !

--
"It is not faith that cures, but a proper use of the eyes."

Tony McBride

2004-10-27, 7:11 pm

Hi evaristo,

To be honest, I prefer to put my fatih in something that has been tested.
Strangely enough, I have never seen any controlled clinical trials of any
exercise-based vision improvement programmes. In fact, many OD's who work on
these programmes deliberately forego scientific trials of their programmes.

Considering these kind of snakeoil books have been around for decades and
the whole world hasn't picked up on it I doubt very much it has any
beneficial value. Although your paranoia may make you believe big business
will smother these ideas for fear of lost revenue, the power of
'word-of-mouth' advertising is greater than anything that any corporation
could devise. If these exercises did indeed work I'm sure they would be very
popular.

Yours atheistically,

Tony

"Evaristo" <evaristo.recalcati@email.it> wrote in message
news:8ljvn0dpkp6ptjghfsl4vi35j12ovqe9cp@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 12:50:21 +0100, "Tony McBride"
> <NOSPAMtonetonemcbride@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
of[vbcol=seagreen]
wearing[vbcol=seagreen]
my[vbcol=seagreen]
fairly[vbcol=seagreen]
since[vbcol=seagreen]
my[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
feel[vbcol=seagreen]
a[vbcol=seagreen]
some[vbcol=seagreen]
about[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
> Jesus Christ.
>
> Listen to your body, that seems to have a little more intelligence
> than you. Stop this nonsense right away !
>
> Learn how not to strain to see and throw away glasses
> contacts and surgery.
>
> Close your eyes and while you rest them imagine some
> color that you readily can imagine. Imagine the object
> you are remembering to have a small short constant
> swing from side to side. While doing this move your
> head from side to side. Do this for at least 20 minutes
> and become aware of what is wrong with your eyes !
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> "It is not faith that cures, but a proper use of the eyes."

Tony McBride

2004-10-27, 7:11 pm

Thanks Mike,

I'll check with my optician to see if any other lenses would be more
suitable.

Tony

"Mike Tyner" <mtyner@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:lFNfd.9166$5i5.1569@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Tony McBride" <NOSPAMtonetonemcbride@hotmail.com> wrote
>
feel[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Lenses that move _too much_ feel dry. The dry feeling increases the longer
> you wear them.
>
> Ciba dailies are great, but some people have to try several different
lenses
> to find the one that works best.
>
> -MT
>
>

Evaristo

2004-10-27, 7:11 pm

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 18:08:33 +0100, "Tony McBride"
<NOSPAMtonetonemcbride@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Hi evaristo,
>
>To be honest, I prefer to put my fatih in something that has been tested.
>Strangely enough, I have never seen any controlled clinical trials of any
>exercise-based vision improvement programmes. In fact, many OD's who work on
>these programmes deliberately forego scientific trials of their programmes.
>
>Considering these kind of snakeoil books have been around for decades and
>the whole world hasn't picked up on it I doubt very much it has any
>beneficial value. Although your paranoia may make you believe big business
>will smother these ideas for fear of lost revenue, the power of
>'word-of-mouth' advertising is greater than anything that any corporation
>could devise. If these exercises did indeed work I'm sure they would be very
>popular.

Hi.

Even if your reasoning is the classical sheep thinking (remember that
the best discoveries in human evolution were made by people that
were doubting established thinking) I will gladly address your
points.

1) You put faith in people that prescribe you glasses so that other
people sell them to you. Then glasses make your naked eye ability to
see worse generating the need of new visits to the first kind of
people
that will prescribe you new glasses. The net result of this is that
your vision get worse and your wallet get empty.

2) These unfair businessmen don't give a f**k about your health and
more than that they don't give a f**k about science and human
evolution but they cunningly use the established authority to bashing
any new discovery. Why don't they investigate the discoveries about
human eyes made by Bates trying to reproduce his experiments to see
if they are factual ? Why they wait for evidence then discard it as
anedoctical ? A true scientist investigates the SINGLE fact that
doesn't fit in his theory (there are many in eye and vision related
disease frequently witnessed by those unfair businessmen) to
discover why the theory is not describing what really happens.

3) There are lots of people that are benefited by NOT using glasses
or that are cured by the methods of the natural eye that are smashed
by the unfair businessmen because if no glasses are needed then
no business could go on and no more authority on their part. In fact
if someone proves that they are wrong (as it is) the whole
establishment will fall apart, so they are the least people to be
expected to prove or accept that. Searching for approvement from
them is simply foolish, so there will never be controlled clinical
trials from those people and they will never recognize them to
be scientific. That's the power of authority.

4) You are right about snakeoil books because the unfair
businessmen did a very smart thing: instead of completely hide the
original publications of the discoverer of the cure of imperfect sight
by treatment without glasses (thing that was and is not possible)
they did a very cunning thing: they crippled it, and (after the
original scientist died) they let it spread without important pieces.
Was it a whole world conspiracy thing ? I think not, but it was
and is not in their interest to investigate and spread the truth so
nobody cared to check it out.

5) The word-of-mouth thing is true. The problem in vision cure
is that superstition is strong in people: one of the key element in
the cure of imperfect sight by treatment without glasses is the use
of the strong light of the sun. Especially for people that wore
glasses it is indispensable to get accustomed to strong light.
This has to be done to the point that when there is strong light
you are not in the least bothered by it, so that there is absolutely
no strain or thought of strain. (A lot of people with normal or
more than normal sight find absolutely non-problematic to look
at the sun, they even enjoy doing it). Now, there is a great fear
and superstition about these unfavorable conditions. The discoverer
of the methods was an MD and people followed (due to the same
authority principle that now hiders the spreading of the truth)
his instructions even when he advised them to do the various
forms of sun treatment. Nowadays only very few people do the
original treatment that includes using the sun glass, learning to
look at the sun, etc. Guess what ? Those people are getting
results! And not mild ones ! Among intelligent people the word
is spreading very rapidly.

6) Why intelligent people are needed to the methods to work ?
Simple: the cause of imperfect sight is the wrong idea about
the use of the eyes. People with imperfect sight think that to do
something better (to see better in this case) an effort is needed.
The methods aim at make the patients UNDERSTAND that their
imperfect vision is due to them wanting to clear up things with
an effort staring at the point they are looking at and trying to
see all at the same time like a camera on film. The eye is different
from the film in this respect because while the film is equally
sensitive in all its area, the retina has a little spot that is more
sensitive than the rest, so it follow that one can see only one
point (the one he is looking at) best and the rest not so clear.
To have an image of the field of vision, the brain takes hints of
it by shifting the point of fixation and IMAGINING the rest.
(There are NO PIXELS in the brain !). It then follows that
improving one imagination one improves the vision. And this
is the other important aspect of the methods that is usually
neglected by the so called "practitioners" or "teachers".
How could you imagine something ? Remembering it! Because
one could imagine only something that he saw. The fundamental
principle of the cure of imperfect sight by treatment without
glasses is exactly this. Practicing with familiar objects (usually
letters of a test card) looking at them, closing the eyes and
remembering them trying to imagine them without effort.
When one learns how to do this the smaller letters clear up
because he strain less to see the bigger ones all at once.

Hope this helps to clear things.

Evaristo.

--
"It is not faith that cures, but a proper use of the eyes."

Otis Brown

2004-10-28, 2:08 am

Evaristo <evaristo.recalcati@email.it> wrote in message news:<k3vvn0h48pckgn5106j38jleh2amj2tm67@4ax.com>...
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 18:08:33 +0100, "Tony McBride"
> <NOSPAMtonetonemcbride@hotmail.com> wrote:
>

Dear Evaristo,

I went through this man's logic, as well as "Bates" logic.

Indeed I have held some of your opinions -- although moderated
to a considerable extent.

I had "figured out" that the "plus" could potentially be
used at the threshold -- for true-prevention, but was
told, "that is not possible", or the concept "must
be destroyed" that I though there was some "science"
behind these "excessive opinions".

I reasoned that SOME ODs would have figured this out -- and
I was right. What I wondered was how they would treat
their own children.

That is the crucial issue, since a man (who is an OD) will
care for his own children "differently" that he can
care for "the public".

Forget money, forget "business". Find the OD who
will help his own children with the plus -- and
that will be the optometrist will will lead the
world towards a better (and preventive) solution -- based
on science, and not on the traditional minus-lens of
the last 400 years.

Best,

Otis
Engineer

[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
> Hi.
>
> Even if your reasoning is the classical sheep thinking (remember that
> the best discoveries in human evolution were made by people that
> were doubting established thinking) I will gladly address your
> points.
>
>
> 1) You put faith in people that prescribe you glasses so that other
> people sell them to you. Then glasses make your naked eye ability to
> see worse generating the need of new visits to the first kind of
> people
> that will prescribe you new glasses. The net result of this is that
> your vision get worse and your wallet get empty.
>
> 2) These unfair businessmen don't give a f**k about your health and
> more than that they don't give a f**k about science and human
> evolution but they cunningly use the established authority to bashing
> any new discovery. Why don't they investigate the discoveries about
> human eyes made by Bates trying to reproduce his experiments to see
> if they are factual ? Why they wait for evidence then discard it as
> anedoctical ? A true scientist investigates the SINGLE fact that
> doesn't fit in his theory (there are many in eye and vision related
> disease frequently witnessed by those unfair businessmen) to
> discover why the theory is not describing what really happens.
>
> 3) There are lots of people that are benefited by NOT using glasses
> or that are cured by the methods of the natural eye that are smashed
> by the unfair businessmen because if no glasses are needed then
> no business could go on and no more authority on their part. In fact
> if someone proves that they are wrong (as it is) the whole
> establishment will fall apart, so they are the least people to be
> expected to prove or accept that. Searching for approvement from
> them is simply foolish, so there will never be controlled clinical
> trials from those people and they will never recognize them to
> be scientific. That's the power of authority.
>
> 4) You are right about snakeoil books because the unfair
> businessmen did a very smart thing: instead of completely hide the
> original publications of the discoverer of the cure of imperfect sight
> by treatment without glasses (thing that was and is not possible)
> they did a very cunning thing: they crippled it, and (after the
> original scientist died) they let it spread without important pieces.
> Was it a whole world conspiracy thing ? I think not, but it was
> and is not in their interest to investigate and spread the truth so
> nobody cared to check it out.
>
> 5) The word-of-mouth thing is true. The problem in vision cure
> is that superstition is strong in people: one of the key element in
> the cure of imperfect sight by treatment without glasses is the use
> of the strong light of the sun. Especially for people that wore
> glasses it is indispensable to get accustomed to strong light.
> This has to be done to the point that when there is strong light
> you are not in the least bothered by it, so that there is absolutely
> no strain or thought of strain. (A lot of people with normal or
> more than normal sight find absolutely non-problematic to look
> at the sun, they even enjoy doing it). Now, there is a great fear
> and superstition about these unfavorable conditions. The discoverer
> of the methods was an MD and people followed (due to the same
> authority principle that now hiders the spreading of the truth)
> his instructions even when he advised them to do the various
> forms of sun treatment. Nowadays only very few people do the
> original treatment that includes using the sun glass, learning to
> look at the sun, etc. Guess what ? Those people are getting
> results! And not mild ones ! Among intelligent people the word
> is spreading very rapidly.
>
> 6) Why intelligent people are needed to the methods to work ?
> Simple: the cause of imperfect sight is the wrong idea about
> the use of the eyes. People with imperfect sight think that to do
> something better (to see better in this case) an effort is needed.
> The methods aim at make the patients UNDERSTAND that their
> imperfect vision is due to them wanting to clear up things with
> an effort staring at the point they are looking at and trying to
> see all at the same time like a camera on film. The eye is different
> from the film in this respect because while the film is equally
> sensitive in all its area, the retina has a little spot that is more
> sensitive than the rest, so it follow that one can see only one
> point (the one he is looking at) best and the rest not so clear.
> To have an image of the field of vision, the brain takes hints of
> it by shifting the point of fixation and IMAGINING the rest.
> (There are NO PIXELS in the brain !). It then follows that
> improving one imagination one improves the vision. And this
> is the other important aspect of the methods that is usually
> neglected by the so called "practitioners" or "teachers".
> How could you imagine something ? Remembering it! Because
> one could imagine only something that he saw. The fundamental
> principle of the cure of imperfect sight by treatment without
> glasses is exactly this. Practicing with familiar objects (usually
> letters of a test card) looking at them, closing the eyes and
> remembering them trying to imagine them without effort.
> When one learns how to do this the smaller letters clear up
> because he strain less to see the bigger ones all at once.
>
>
> Hope this helps to clear things.
>
>
> Evaristo.

Dr. Leukoma

2004-10-28, 7:09 am

More off-topic responses from our resident trolls.

DrG

otisbrown@pa.net (Otis Brown) wrote in
news:6dbddb9.0410272013.5958561c@posting.google.com:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Evaristo <evaristo.recalcati@email.it> wrote in message
> news:<k3vvn0h48pckgn5106j38jleh2amj2tm67@4ax.com>...
>
> Dear Evaristo,
>
> I went through this man's logic, as well as "Bates" logic.
>
> Indeed I have held some of your opinions -- although moderated
> to a considerable extent.
>
> I had "figured out" that the "plus" could potentially be
> used at the threshold -- for true-prevention, but was
> told, "that is not possible", or the concept "must
> be destroyed" that I though there was some "science"
> behind these "excessive opinions".
>
> I reasoned that SOME ODs would have figured this out -- and
> I was right. What I wondered was how they would treat
> their own children.
>
> That is the crucial issue, since a man (who is an OD) will
> care for his own children "differently" that he can
> care for "the public".
>
> Forget money, forget "business". Find the OD who
> will help his own children with the plus -- and
> that will be the optometrist will will lead the
> world towards a better (and preventive) solution -- based
> on science, and not on the traditional minus-lens of
> the last 400 years.
>
> Best,
>
> Otis
> Engineer
>
>
>

Evaristo

2004-10-28, 11:09 am

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 11:55:18 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:

>More off-topic responses from our resident trolls.
>
>DrG

Lol.

More name calling by our resident unfair businessmen.

--
"It is not faith that cures, but a proper use of the eyes."

Tony McBride

2004-10-28, 7:11 pm

Mmm..

If the moderator of this newsgroup is reading I really think you should do
something about this.
I came here looking for genuine information and end up listening to people
with obvious mental illness.

"Evaristo" <evaristo.recalcati@email.it> wrote in message
news:t762o0dprad3r082892mkd4d4rp1671a01@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 11:55:18 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
> <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>
>
> Lol.
>
> More name calling by our resident unfair businessmen.
>
>
> --
> "It is not faith that cures, but a proper use of the eyes."

Mike Tyner

2004-10-28, 10:08 pm

"Tony McBride" wrote

> If the moderator of this newsgroup is reading I really
> think you should do something about this.
> I came here looking for genuine information and end
> up listening to people with obvious mental illness.

Like most public newsgroups, there is no moderator in sci.med.vision, nor
any means of censorship if such a position did exist.

99% of the outrageous posts are from three individuals who have no formal
training in vision science or medicine. Fortunately, their ad hominems,
false assumptions, and emotional appeals make them easy to spot.

If you stick around another day or two, you'll hear how vehemently they
assert their right to hijack the newsgroup with their own version of
"scientific truth". In the process, they will accuse you of stupidity, or at
least naivete, for agreeing with the medical establishment. You will become
part of the vast medical/optometric/optical conspiracy, whose members are
sworn to keep the truth hidden, in order to sell glasses and contacts and
laser surgery.

Periodically, we muster the energy to argue with them. But so far, nobody
has successfully discouraged them from using a sci.med newsgroup to denounce
what science and medicine consider conventional knowledge. Either we are
misrepresenting science and medicine, or science and medicine are wrong and
we are fools for not agreeing with archaic and unfounded assertions.

It's sad to see you go, but I don't really see a solution. At times, there
is entertainment value in their diatribes. On your way, remember that
wearing eyeglasses, improper use of the eyes, and mental defects cause all
vision problems. Myopia can be prevented, and only engineers can understand
ophthalmic optics. Accommodation is controlled by the extraocular muscles,
and cataracts, glaucoma and all blindness can be cured by staring at the
sun.

To play the Minuet in G, you have only to THINK the Minuet in G. We know
this because Professor Harold Hill said so, 100 years ago.

-MT, OD

Evaristo

2004-10-29, 7:08 am

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 00:53:13 +0100, "Tony McBride"
<NOSPAMtonetonemcbride@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Mmm..
>
>If the moderator of this newsgroup is reading I really think you should do
>something about this.
>I came here looking for genuine information and end up listening to people
>with obvious mental illness.

More name calling by our not-so-resident new one that thinks
that the unfair businessmen will solve his problems.

--
"It is not faith that cures, but a proper use of the eyes."

Evaristo

2004-10-29, 7:08 am

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 00:51:55 GMT, "Mike Tyner" <mtyner@mindspring.com>
wrote:

>"Tony McBride" wrote
>
>
>Like most public newsgroups, there is no moderator in sci.med.vision, nor
>any means of censorship if such a position did exist.

So, why you and others stand up as the pseudo-moderators ?
Say your things and be done. If someone disagrees with you,
please do not laugh at him/her, but answer or be quiet. This
is the nature of and un-moderated newsgroup and of free-speech.

Live and LET live.

>99% of the outrageous posts are from three individuals who have no formal
>training in vision science or medicine.

Since there are only three people that have doubts about the ability
of the formal trained to CURE people from their eye problems then
it means that the current vision science and medicine is right and the
three people are wrong. Hmm that could be, but could be NOT.
You quoted Asimoov without understanding what he was saying.
Lol.

>Fortunately, their ad hominems,
>false assumptions, and emotional appeals make them easy to spot.

So easy that you avoid to do it ?
Lol.
You haven't read a book that you say has false assumptions and
emotional appeals. When asked to spot where they were,
you withdrew.

>If you stick around another day or two, you'll hear how vehemently they
>assert their right to hijack the newsgroup with their own version of
>"scientific truth".

You would like to be the only one that can do this ?

>In the process, they will accuse you of stupidity, or at
>least naivete, for agreeing with the medical establishment.

When the medical establishment claims to be curing people
when in fact is wandering in the dark, it is not an intelligent
thing to do to follow their advice.

>You will become
>part of the vast medical/optometric/optical conspiracy, whose members are
>sworn to keep the truth hidden, in order to sell glasses and contacts and
>laser surgery.

There is no conscious conspiracy, but these people are not interested
in curing people from their diseases, they are only interested in
their business. Otherwise they would investigate why some cases
don't fit their theories and methods.

>Periodically, we muster the energy to argue with them. But so far, nobody
>has successfully discouraged them from using a sci.med newsgroup to denounce
>what science and medicine consider conventional knowledge.

Conventional knowledge about vision and eyes is wrong.
Plain and simple. The records of the discovery of what is wrong
was made available by the man that discovered it but conventional
"scientists" avoid investigating and reproducing the experiments
described in those publications. Why they avoid it ? Because it
is of no use to anyone apart to the patients that are willing to
give their money to anyone with a certain degree of authority,
out of desperation about their condition, obviously.

>Either we are
>misrepresenting science and medicine, or science and medicine are wrong and
>we are fools for not agreeing with archaic and unfounded assertions.

The original publications of that man are full of practical
experiments to prove the following assertions that are mere
descriptions of facts that can be observed by ANYONE
replicates those experiments.

The archaic-ness point is weak if you think that your current
beliefs about vision, accommodation and the like are WAY OLDER
than these about the man that made the discoveries. Way older.

>It's sad to see you go, but I don't really see a solution.

As usual.

>At times, there
>is entertainment value in their diatribes.

The entertainment goes away when you are left with embarrassment.
Lol.

> On your way, remember that
>wearing eyeglasses, improper use of the eyes, and mental defects cause all
>vision problems.

Exactly.
Investigate why is like this.
Read the publications made by the discoverer of it.
Understand what's written in there.
TRY ON YOURSELF the full advice that is written in there,
without being poisoned by unfounded beliefs and superstitions
that these unfair businessmen try to cast upon you cunningly
using your fear about losing your ability to see to fill their pockets
with your money.

This is the real archaic way to do business. Middle-age stuff.

>Myopia can be prevented, and only engineers can understand
>ophthalmic optics.

Otis is wrong with his beliefs because all kind of glasses force
the mind to a certain degree of refraction hindering the normal
accommodation to take place.
Prevention simply lays in the teaching of how not to use the
eyes in the wrong way (i.e. interfering with them trying to see
with a conscious/unconscious effort)

>Accommodation is controlled by the extraocular muscles,

There are publications that describe scientifically how this
could be proven. True scientist have to follow the scientific
method and have to try to reproduce the same experiments
in the same conditions to see if the results are the same. If
the experiments could be reproduced with the same results,
then there is something right in the writings. This hasn't be
done. Why ? Because is of no interest of anyone in the field
to do such a thing. The status quo is more than satisfactory
to those unfair businessmen. Here in Italy the first company
of the state is the producer of eyeglasses. Go figure!

>and cataracts, glaucoma and
>all blindness can be cured by staring at the
>sun.

This is the usual crippled statement that someone that has
not better arguments can put forth. Why are you crippling
and generalizing everything instead of asking more about
it ? This is the way an unfair businessmen dismiss things
that are opposite to his interests: he exaggerates and
distorts information taking it to extremes. No one said
all blindness, no one said staring at the sun.

>To play the Minuet in G, you have only to THINK the Minuet in G. We know
>this because Professor Harold Hill said so, 100 years ago.

Certainly you have to think it if you want to play it !
Lol !!! Is it sufficient ? Probably not if you are not a musician,
but if you have been trained to music you could easily play it
thinking about it. In fact if you can even play it without thinking
about it !

The accommodation theory that glasses sellers are using as
scientific proof of their business being right are of a man
called Herman Ludwig Ferdinand von Helmoltz born in 1821
and died in 1894.

The fact that he made important discoveries in other fields
doesn't necessarily mean that he was right about the eyes
also. This is again the authority principle and its fallacies.

--
"It is not faith that cures, but a proper use of the eyes."

Dr. Leukoma

2004-10-29, 7:08 am

I don't know how you sneaked through my filter, but back into the killfile
you go.

DrG

Evaristo <evaristo.recalcati@email.it> wrote in
news:t354o0ppormg06fblhoq5o6775t9vmpa25@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 00:51:55 GMT, "Mike Tyner" <mtyner@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> So, why you and others stand up as the pseudo-moderators ?
> Say your things and be done. If someone disagrees with you,
> please do not laugh at him/her, but answer or be quiet. This
> is the nature of and un-moderated newsgroup and of free-speech.
>
> Live and LET live.
>
>
> Since there are only three people that have doubts about the ability
> of the formal trained to CURE people from their eye problems then
> it means that the current vision science and medicine is right and the
> three people are wrong. Hmm that could be, but could be NOT.
> You quoted Asimoov without understanding what he was saying.
> Lol.
>
>
> So easy that you avoid to do it ?
> Lol.
> You haven't read a book that you say has false assumptions and
> emotional appeals. When asked to spot where they were,
> you withdrew.
>
>
> You would like to be the only one that can do this ?
>
>
> When the medical establishment claims to be curing people
> when in fact is wandering in the dark, it is not an intelligent
> thing to do to follow their advice.
>
>
> There is no conscious conspiracy, but these people are not interested
> in curing people from their diseases, they are only interested in
> their business. Otherwise they would investigate why some cases
> don't fit their theories and methods.
>
>
> Conventional knowledge about vision and eyes is wrong.
> Plain and simple. The records of the discovery of what is wrong
> was made available by the man that discovered it but conventional
> "scientists" avoid investigating and reproducing the experiments
> described in those publications. Why they avoid it ? Because it
> is of no use to anyone apart to the patients that are willing to
> give their money to anyone with a certain degree of authority,
> out of desperation about their condition, obviously.
>
>
> The original publications of that man are full of practical
> experiments to prove the following assertions that are mere
> descriptions of facts that can be observed by ANYONE
> replicates those experiments.
>
> The archaic-ness point is weak if you think that your current
> beliefs about vision, accommodation and the like are WAY OLDER
> than these about the man that made the discoveries. Way older.
>
>
> As usual.
>
>
> The entertainment goes away when you are left with embarrassment.
> Lol.
>
>
> Exactly.
> Investigate why is like this.
> Read the publications made by the discoverer of it.
> Understand what's written in there.
> TRY ON YOURSELF the full advice that is written in there,
> without being poisoned by unfounded beliefs and superstitions
> that these unfair businessmen try to cast upon you cunningly
> using your fear about losing your ability to see to fill their pockets
> with your money.
>
> This is the real archaic way to do business. Middle-age stuff.
>
>
> Otis is wrong with his beliefs because all kind of glasses force
> the mind to a certain degree of refraction hindering the normal
> accommodation to take place.
> Prevention simply lays in the teaching of how not to use the
> eyes in the wrong way (i.e. interfering with them trying to see
> with a conscious/unconscious effort)
>
>
> There are publications that describe scientifically how this
> could be proven. True scientist have to follow the scientific
> method and have to try to reproduce the same experiments
> in the same conditions to see if the results are the same. If
> the experiments could be reproduced with the same results,
> then there is something right in the writings. This hasn't be
> done. Why ? Because is of no interest of anyone in the field
> to do such a thing. The status quo is more than satisfactory
> to those unfair businessmen. Here in Italy the first company
> of the state is the producer of eyeglasses. Go figure!
>
>
> This is the usual crippled statement that someone that has
> not better arguments can put forth. Why are you crippling
> and generalizing everything instead of asking more about
> it ? This is the way an unfair businessmen dismiss things
> that are opposite to his interests: he exaggerates and
> distorts information taking it to extremes. No one said
> all blindness, no one said staring at the sun.
>
>
> Certainly you have to think it if you want to play it !
> Lol !!! Is it sufficient ? Probably not if you are not a musician,
> but if you have been trained to music you could easily play it
> thinking about it. In fact if you can even play it without thinking
> about it !
>
> The accommodation theory that glasses sellers are using as
> scientific proof of their business being right are of a man
> called Herman Ludwig Ferdinand von Helmoltz born in 1821
> and died in 1894.
>
> The fact that he made important discoveries in other fields
> doesn't necessarily mean that he was right about the eyes
> also. This is again the authority principle and its fallacies.
>
>
>
> --
> "It is not faith that cures, but a proper use of the eyes."
>

Dan Leung

2004-10-29, 11:10 am

"Tony McBride" <NOSPAMtonetonemcbride@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<417f8b17$0$27540$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>...
> Hi,
>
> I've got a bit of a strange question to ask but i'm quite an anxious sort of
> person so that probably explains it!
> Basically I've always wanted to wear contacts ever since I started wearing
> my glasses. I tried them a few years back and found I couldnt get them in my
> eye easily so gave up. A few months back I decided to bite the bullet and
> give it another go.
>
I'm anxious sort too, that is why I been wearing glass for over 30
years and now I'm trying out soft contact, should have done that
earlier.
>
> The good news is that I stuck with it and can now pop them in and out fairly
> easily. However I haven't really built my wear time up beyond 3 hours since
> I'm a bit worried that the lenses are getting dry and will get stuck to my
> eye. I wear ciba focus dailies and find they get a bit itchy after 2 or 3
> hours - is this just a sign of getting used to them or should I be taking
> them out? My optician saw my eyes after a few hours and said they seemed to
> move well when I blink. Also, my eyes don't get red when the contacts feel
> uncomfortable.
>
I'm not an expert as I'm new to contact. Does your doctor give you a
timetable to build up your wearing time. Mine is like 2 hours per day
for a couple days, then, 4 hours for the next 2 days, and so on to
build up until I can waer 12 hours per day, if you have a rest day at
6 hours, then go form 6 hours day for 2 days before moving on. I
found inserting and taking off is not that difficult for me, On the
4th day, I can insert and remove on the first attampt.
>
> To be honest I think its to do with a story I heard about someone having a
> contact lens stuck and having to have it removed at the hospital with some
> kind of spatula. This has me worried a little so i'm a bit reticient about
> keeping them in for longer than a few hours.
>
If you are uncertain the lens got stuck, wash you hand with soap and
water, then touch the lens and move it slightly in your eye. this is
just my idea. I don't know if this is a good idea, I like to play with
my contacts when I first got it. Also , I mistaking waer it inside out
one time in one eye and got very unconfortable. Oh, the trainer told
me, if I nap with my contact on, it will become dry and hard to
remove, just put a couple drops of rinse solution into my eye and wait
a while, then it should loosen up.

I am wearing Aspheric from cooper vision

Hope this help

Dan

Evaristo

2004-10-29, 7:16 pm

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 11:58:40 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:

>I don't know how you sneaked through my filter, but back into the killfile
>you go.

Please explain the need to say it out loud.
You want me in your killfile ?

Ok.
Do it and be done!

I always use the same username and email address, so
I don't sneak through anything.

Do you feel so much better in saying it out loud ?

Lol.

--
"It is not faith that cures, but a proper use of the eyes."

Otis Brown

2004-10-29, 7:16 pm

Dear Evaristo, Rishi, Jan, Judy, and Tony,

Subject: Posting on "Med and Science".

I prefer to separate pure-scientific issues and questions,
(i.e., how do all natural eye's behave when objectively tested.)
from "medical" issues, i.e., what causes terrible "refractive errors",
and similarly BIASED statements about the eye.

To refer to a "quick fix" method (that is understandable,
under the circumstances) as pure-science is not wise -- nor
is it pure science.

It is true that profoundly contradictory ideas exist
about the behavior of the natural eyes -- and these
issues COULD BE RESOLVED if we used neutral words
to describe the natural eyes behavior.

This is indeed a un-moderated public form. Anyone
loging on should read Bev's statement.

I provide engineering-scientific statements about
the behavior of the natural eye -- which any
competent engineer could check -- by running
the OBJECTIVE experiment himself. (And I DO NOT
MEAN A MEDICAL "EXPERIMENT".)

Indeed, any new scientific idea (including Max Planct,
Einstein, Galileo, Kepler and Copernicus, have received
incredible hostile reception -- at first.

Only because they were persistant, and had good
reason to believe in their concept -- did there
concept eventually replace the historic and
(false) previous concept.

So I take the struggle for ideas and concepts
to be fundamental to science (and obviously not
medicine). The trick is to determine the
difference -- and what standards you are
going to use to judge scientific facts.

Best,

Otis
Engineer

Evaristo <evaristo.recalcati@email.it> wrote in message news:<t354o0ppormg06fblhoq5o6775t9vmpa25@4ax.com>...
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 00:51:55 GMT, "Mike Tyner" <mtyner@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> So, why you and others stand up as the pseudo-moderators ?
> Say your things and be done. If someone disagrees with you,
> please do not laugh at him/her, but answer or be quiet. This
> is the nature of and un-moderated newsgroup and of free-speech.
>
> Live and LET live.
>
>
> Since there are only three people that have doubts about the ability
> of the formal trained to CURE people from their eye problems then
> it means that the current vision science and medicine is right and the
> three people are wrong. Hmm that could be, but could be NOT.
> You quoted Asimoov without understanding what he was saying.
> Lol.
>
>
> So easy that you avoid to do it ?
> Lol.
> You haven't read a book that you say has false assumptions and
> emotional appeals. When asked to spot where they were,
> you withdrew.

Tony McBride

2004-10-31, 4:09 am

Evaristo

2004-10-31, 4:09 am

Otis Brown

2004-10-31, 7:08 am

Tony McBride

2004-10-31, 7:11 pm

Thanks for the information Dan,

Its nice to hear something that answers some of my concerns rather than the
deluge of previous postings

Tony

"Dan Leung" <danleung1@excite.com> wrote in message
news:384d7370.0410290731.72d328c5@posting.google.com...
> "Tony McBride" <NOSPAMtonetonemcbride@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<417f8b17$0$27540$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>...
sort of[vbcol=seagreen]
wearing[vbcol=seagreen]
in my[vbcol=seagreen]
and[vbcol=seagreen]
> I'm anxious sort too, that is why I been wearing glass for over 30
> years and now I'm trying out soft contact, should have done that
> earlier.
fairly[vbcol=seagreen]
since[vbcol=seagreen]
my[vbcol=seagreen]
3[vbcol=seagreen]
taking[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
feel[vbcol=seagreen]
> I'm not an expert as I'm new to contact. Does your doctor give you a
> timetable to build up your wearing time. Mine is like 2 hours per day
> for a couple days, then, 4 hours for the next 2 days, and so on to
> build up until I can waer 12 hours per day, if you have a rest day at
> 6 hours, then go form 6 hours day for 2 days before moving on. I
> found inserting and taking off is not that difficult for me, On the
> 4th day, I can insert and remove on the first attampt.
having a[vbcol=seagreen]
some[vbcol=seagreen]
about[vbcol=seagreen]
> If you are uncertain the lens got stuck, wash you hand with soap and
> water, then touch the lens and move it slightly in your eye. this is
> just my idea. I don't know if this is a good idea, I like to play with
> my contacts when I first got it. Also , I mistaking waer it inside out
> one time in one eye and got very unconfortable. Oh, the trainer told
> me, if I nap with my contact on, it will become dry and hard to
> remove, just put a couple drops of rinse solution into my eye and wait
> a while, then it should loosen up.
>
> I am wearing Aspheric from cooper vision
>
> Hope this help
>
> Dan

Tony McBride

2004-11-02, 11:13 am

Thanks for the information Dan,

Its nice to hear something that answers some of my concerns rather than the
deluge of previous postings

Dan Leung

2004-11-02, 7:12 pm

Evaristo

2004-11-02, 7:12 pm