Stay away from "vision educators" - sci.med.vision

Message from discussion Stay away from "vision educators"

LarryDoc

View profile

More options Mar 30 2008, 10:46 pm

Newsgroups: sci.med.vision

From: LarryDoc <lite...@googlemail.com>

Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 05:46:16 -0700 (PDT)

Local: Sun, Mar 30 2008 10:46 pm

Subject: Re: Stay away from "vision educators"

  Reply to author
  |
  Forward
  | Print
  | View thread
  | Show original
  | Report this message
  | Find messages by this author
  

In article <MPG.19a0267a83607f95989...@news.ntlworld.com>,

Kevin <sevenths...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > It is well known that in general all myopes have a deterioration at the
> > > very edges of the retina as compared to people who have not worn
> > > glasses.

------------------

> Heavens, Your points are interesting and I've noted them, but what an
> astonishing raeaction!
> I did not say 'degeneration at the edge of the retina is due to the
> wearing of glasses', I merely suggested that it not be ignored as a
> possible contributing factor in the causation of this condition. That's
> a line of enquiry, not a scientific proclamation.

Hogwash! I'd suggest you read your own words again. I quoted it
here, above directly from your post.

> Try responding to me again in a much less assumptive manner , then maybe
> your words won't sound so hollow.

Not hollow.

Your statement is simply false. It is not "well known that all
myopes............" That is wrong. Just say: "I should have been more
careful how I chose my words. Or admit you are wrong. It has to be
one or the other.

I'm sorry if clincal observation and the reporting of data based on
the scientific method gets in the way of Bates rhetoric. It's simple
to find lack of credibilty in The Method when parts of it are known to
be false, invalid, or detrimental.

On the other hand, it seems that the Bates Cultists have not been able
to come up with any credible evidence that there is validity to The
Method. Nothing. If you want to discuss Bates in a sci.med heirarchy
of UseNet newsgroups, then you've got to come up with some science.
Otherwise, the proper place to promote Bates is in an alt. newsgroup
or perhaps misc.health.alternative. Not here.

I've been around here long enough to know that every couple of years a
new crop of Bates zealots shows up here for a while, usually just
after the pin-hole glasses people leave. This current crop is taking
longerthan usual to go away.

Personally, I love to see you cultists get it together and fund a
study to try to prove your point. It doesn't matter whether YOU think
it works or even if a whole cult of users thinks it works. You've got
to able to show cause and effect relationship. It is helpful to
understand the physiology that makes the connection, but sometimes it
is OK to present data that shows the cause and effect without knowing
exactly why and how. You can work on that later. Then you've got to
show it is both safe and effective, or at least exactly HOW effective.
You've got to be able to prove The Method is a safe and effective
treatment for what it is promoted to achieve.

Either it is, or it isn't. Don't YOU really want to know, or it is
still OK to believe the moon is made of cheese and the earth is flat?
I heard it's just those warped polycarbonate windows on the all
spacecraft that make the earth appear to a globe. Of course the moon
isn't made of cheese! No one believed that one. Did they?

--LB

Reply to author Forward