Message from discussion Stay away from "vision educators"

Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Kevin <lite...@googlemail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.med.vision
Subject: Re: Stay away from "vision educators"
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 05:37:17 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <161c09fe-6142-4c37-96a2-118db7c94a85@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
References: <5c58e0d1-9b12-42fc-b541-b0e21ac201b8@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com> 
	<0fc77cc3-eb62-4cd4-a21c-a33345912a71@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com> 
	<b2dfab4a-eec8-4095-8a12-89a0520ba9be@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> 
	<f8d9f984-7b1b-452b-a2e7-6968203146d6@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com> 
	<0d8b1c83-9db8-44a0-9e72-dfe66d593937@m71g2000hse.googlegroups.com> 
	<2976925e-3f96-4a02-9d0d-d24b62e2fc3c@a22g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> 
	<1612ca7a-f7dd-41ed-b573-1ab6b877088c@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> 
	<c483c175-9838-47ce-a446-5a2cd25277c7@m71g2000hse.googlegroups.com> 
	<e9e22bef-0069-479a-8ffb-1d1b6c2630c7@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> 
	<5824817a-ca97-4f13-a00c-30ca3d3fb0aa@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> 
	<e9eeb0ca-a3d0-4ff4-9565-bedf7f655517@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com> 
	<008f8a99-260b-4cd0-b40e-80804e91beac@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 90.199.160.31
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1206880638 12763 127.0.0.1 (30 Mar 2008 12:37:18 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 12:37:18 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com; posting-host=90.199.160.31; 
	posting-account=_Gm4UgoAAAC2-81M-H--nVC5SC5u3ptc
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.8.1.13) 
	Gecko/20080311 Firefox/2.0.0.13,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)

On 30 Mar, 13:35, LarryDoc <lite...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> In article <MPG.199ecb5f8066fe68989...@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.
> > An optometrist assumes that the deterioration is a result of being
> > myopic. I would suggest that the fact that the person is trained into
> > using a smaller area of the retina should not be ignored.
> > Kevin
>
> BatesCultist:
>
> Your statements are absolutely scientifically false.
>
> 1. ALL myopes DO NOT have deterioration of the retina. Some do, some
> don't. For that matter, so do hyperopes. Some do, some don't. For that
> matter, so do people with no optical correction. Some do, some don't.
> And some people are born with a predisposition, and some people are
> simply born that way.
>
> 2. Lattice degeneration, peripheral holes and tears have nothing to do
> with whether a person has worn glasses or not, and hardly to do with
> whether or not there is a refractive error. The only FACT we know for
> certain is that SOME people with enlongated axial length or who have a
> physical growth anomolgy thining the peripheral retina, or those who
> have had head trauma are at higher risk for "deterioration". Wearing
> glasses has nothing to with it. Hitting your head on the windshield
> because some loonatic crashed into you because s/he was Bate-d into
> not using optical correction is a definate potential cause.
>
> 3. We don't ASSUME anything, We examine, we observe, we report.
>
> 4. It is not a fact that a myope wearing glasses is trained into using
> a smaller area of the retina. The perihperal retina gets plently of
> stimulation----and whatever, it has nothing to do with peripheral
> retina anomolies.
>
> SO....
>
> Your statements are absolutely scientifically false. Like most
> everything Bates.  But, your a zealot, a fanatic and nothing contrary
> to your position means a damn thing to you.
>
> --LB

Heavens, Your points are interesting and I've noted them, but what an
astonishing reaction!

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.

But your reaction is to me the very opposite of unassuming.

> 3. We don't ASSUME anything, We examine, we observe, we report.

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

Kevin