Re: Preventive Information for New Visitors on Preventive Research.
- From: Otis <otisbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 03:25:30 -0700 (PDT)
Dear "Brainy",
If you do not like reading about scientific research, and reports of
the natural eye's dynamic behavior -- then simply do not read the
reports.
I think you are "Brainy" enough to figure that out by now.
On Jul 5, 12:49 am, "Ms.Brainy" <mikabra...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 4, 9:00 pm, Otis <otisbr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
While there are majority-opinion ODs who wish to maintain the
"traditional" method (because it is so easy), there are also some very
dedicated optomterists and ophthamologist who believe that it is
necessary to challenge "accepted beliefs", and wish to change this
"system". My judgment is this.
In my own experience, the optical profession is made up of highly
qualified, competent, caring individuals, some of whom I happen to
disagree with.
Regardless, I do not envy their positions, for they
face quite a dilemma. The existing standard for treating
nearsightedness is to let it run wild; traditional treatments do not
help nearsightedness, and quite probably make it worse.
On the other hand, in adopting newer treatments for nearsightedness
the brave ones
risk raising the eyebrows of parents, patients, and colleagues alike
with unfamiliar treatments that most of us are not accustomed to.
(My major goal of this site is to educate you so that you can make an
intelligent INFORMED
choice in this matter for your own children.)
That there is a spirited debate between the two
camps (Majority and Second Opinions) should not be taken as any sign
of disrespect for the optical
professionals we so depend on -- and none is intended.
I deeply regret people who can not understand the need to develop new
ideas in BOTH science and medicine.
The purpose of sci.med.vision is to provide a place to review new
science as it concerns your choice in the matter.
I regret the people who think they know so much -- that the can not
accept the concept of a preventive second-opinion.
Otis Brown
On Jul 4, 11:40 pm, Otis <otisbr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reference: Majority-opinion Post by Majority-opinion "Jan"
The opinion I express, that a negative refractive STATE of the eye can
be prevented, is not exclusively my judgment.
Since this is an open site, you should have the benifit of the second-
opinion, that nearsighedness can be prevented with wise use of the
plus at the threshold.
In the interests of fair play, and open exchange of scientific
information, I suggest reading this site by Steve Leung OD, and
http://www.chinamyopia.org/
Soon See at:
http://myopiafree.i-see.org/soonicansee/index.html
I also suggest watching this video, prior to allowing your child to be
put into an excessively strong minus, which will only produce further
"adaptation" of the natural eye to that minus lens.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiuC7a1lkrk
But this choice must be an informed one -- and you should seek out the
optometrist who has your child's long-term visual welfare at heart.
There is no "perfect" answers, only a wise choice.
Enjoy,
Who wrote these for you, Otis? Your typical spelling and typo errors
are missing, it can't be you. BTW, how long are you going to continue
with this crusade? Haven't you exhausted the subject numerous times
in the past? Actually it was nice to get a break from your nonsense
in the form of dog products, but no, you must jump in after months of
seclusion. What do you do in between flooding this site? Just
curious. Do you have a life?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Imagine if you could press a button and activate your HIDDEN GENIUS...
- Next by Date: Re: Preventive Information for New Visitors on Preventive Research.
- Previous by thread: Re: Preventive Information for New Visitors on Preventive Research.
- Next by thread: Re: Preventive Information for New Visitors on Preventive Research.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
