Vision - Sci.med.vision weekly warning

Author

Sci.med.vision weekly warning

The Real Bev

2004-10-29, 7:16 pm

I think we should post this weekly too, perhaps on Wednesday. Should I
remove either of the names and replace them with 'Doc' and 'Reader' or
something equally anonymous?

=============================================

> "Tony McBride" wrote
>

Mike Tyner wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> 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

A Lieberman

2004-10-30, 11:08 am

On 29 Oct 2004 20:52:43 -0700, Otis Brown wrote:

> Oh, and also, I don't call people "names" unless
> they directly insult me.

Oh really Otis. WRONG AGAIN. How about using Google and look up our
conversation about a definition of a child.

Sheeez, still can't get anything right!

> I state scientific facts clearly (concerning
> direct SCIENTIFIC measurements).

Probably not, since the doctors are able to provide unbiased websites
supporting their position. I have yet to see you do this.

Allen

Rishi Giovanni Gatti

2004-10-30, 7:09 pm

> > I state scientific facts clearly (concerning
>
> Probably not, since the doctors are able to provide unbiased websites
> supporting their position. I have yet to see you do this.

When you apply science to human beings something always cracks down.

Otis Brown

2004-10-31, 7:11 pm

Dear Rishi and Allen,

Allen defines the "majority opinion" web sites to
be "un-biased", and therefore all SCIENTIFIC web
sites MUST BE BIASED.

Oh, yeah! Jeeze.

In many, perhaps most cases, the medical person has
no choice but to follow the tradition of the last
400 years.

But to elevate a tradition of of the "quick fix" (which
we all understand) as "science", is not reasonable.

I think Bates was absoluty half-right. He was right
about the (now proven) effect that the minus lens
has on the refractive state of all natural eyes.
(i.e., your vision is 20/50, and you wear a over-prescribed
minus lens, and you can EXPECT your vison to go to 20/200
in a short time.)

But I think he did not go far enough.

Rishi and Evaristo recommend various "understandings"
of Bates.

I advocate a complete discussion about the concept
that all natural eyes are "dynamic" in the sense
that the control their refractive (status) to
their average visual enviroment. This is a scientific
(not medical) stement, since it is open to direct
testing (on animals).

The fact that these ODs (particularly Judy and Jan)
can so totally trash such direct factual and
scientific truth -- is beyond men.

But that is the issues we should be exploring
on this sited -- the difference between pure
science and pure facts, and the "twisting"
of words to force-fit facts onto the
failed Donders-Helmholtz theory.

But that is the issue for our pleasant discussion.

Look for the quality of your intellect to
solve this problem.

Best,

Otis
www.myopiafree.com

g.gatti@agora.it (Rishi Giovanni Gatti) wrote in message news:<c72b1499.0410301200.53814b28@posting.google.com>...
>
> When you apply science to human beings something always cracks down.

Rishi Giovanni Gatti

2004-11-01, 10:08 pm

Otis Brown

2004-11-02, 2:09 am

Dear Bev,

I prefer this discussion group as it is.

You might identify the various people "takling"
here -- and there interests.

I would certainly look at sci.med.vision for
the scientific ideas I express. The names would be:

Jan - OD
Judy - OD
David - Ophthalmologist
Evariston -- Bates Advocate
Rish -- Bates Advocate
Otis -- Prevention as a "second-opinion" advocate
(Or the proven science of the natural eye's behavior
if you prefer).

That might "clear the air".

Oh, and also, I don't call people "names" unless
they directly insult me.

I state scientific facts clearly (concerning
direct SCIENTIFIC measurements). I do not
state MEDICAL facts -- since that tragically
the work of a profound misconception of
the natural eye's proven behavior.

Let us continue to "state our case" and work
towards a better method of prevention based
on the facts themselves, and not
on all this conjecture.

Best,

Otis
www.myopiafree.com

The Real Bev <bashley@myrealbox.com> wrote in message news:<41829E84.81E9C28F@myrealbox.com>...]

> I think we should post this weekly too, perhaps on Wednesday. Should I
> remove either of the names and replace them with 'Doc' and 'Reader' or
> something equally anonymous?

The Real Bev

2004-11-02, 2:09 am

Otis Brown wrote:
>
> Dear Bev,
>
> I prefer this discussion group as it is.

Nobody proposes changing it, but it gets tedious when newbies revive the
same arguments that newbies have been reviving since Gore invented the
internet.

--
Cheers,
Bev
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
'Politics' comes from an ancient Greek word meaning
'many blood-sucking leeches.' -- Mark Russell

Otis Brown

2004-11-02, 11:13 am