Author Topic: Medical Opinion - Sometimes tragically wrong.  (Read 1781 times)

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1736
Medical Opinion - Sometimes tragically wrong.
« on: April 18, 2013, 10:24:37 AM »
Dear Friends,

I rely on medicine, as we all do, for some problems.  Yet I judge that they make a mistake about true-prevention on some visual health issues.

But still, I like to look them in the eye and LISTEN to them.  My personal opinion is that some words are a "mistake" to start with.  I measure the eye as having refractive STATES - positive (meaning 20/20 by self-test), and negative (meaning 20/40 to 20/60).  Thus I describe so-called nearsightedness as a "negative state of the natural eye".  If you start out with "wrong word" you will only wind up totally confused.  Here are some quotes:

Errors, like straws, upon the surface flow; He who would search for pearls must dive below.

-John Dryden

Truth comes out of error more readily than out of confusion.

- Francis Bacon

It is one thing, to show a man that he is in an error, and another, to put him in possession of truth.

- John Locke

The ill and unfit choice of words wonderfully obstructs the understanding.

- Francis Bacon

By calling the refractive STATES of all natural eye's "errors" you can only make matters worse. Yet that is what the "medical mind" calls EARLY negative states of the natural eye.  But listen to the doctor himself.

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1736
Re: Medical Opinion - Sometimes tragically wrong.
« Reply #1 on: April 18, 2013, 10:32:30 AM »
Subject:  I consider "negative status" for my natural eyes to be totally self-induced.

Regarding:  Now I need to be told the truth - that if I do "nose on book" then the resultant "negative status" - is my own fault. But please tell me the truth on a scientific level.

Here are two videos that discuss these issues for your interest.  Thus, if I have a medical issues or problem, I indeed go to a medical doctor, and insist that all interested in prevention (at 20/40) do so. But when a minus lens is presented, I know that I have to do recovery myself — because no medical person is in a position to help me.

First video — What is a negative refractive state of the natural eye — in objective science?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viDTbtpfpac&feature=related

Second — “Does wearing a minus lens (intended to “fix” your distant vision) only accelerate the natural eye’s response to both long-term near, compounded by a strong minus lens?”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7Ve28jfO7Y&feature=related

In an office, it is very easy to demonstrate the effect of minus lens on the natural eye.

There are a number of reasons to believe that while necessary for the “short term”, the minus should not be worn if the person still can read the 20/40  line or better.

This becomes a matter of, “informed choice”, to  personally choose to wear the plus (by your wisdom and long-term control), or not.

I can not say that a lot of "recovery" is possible.  But I do say we should be able to "change our mind", when our refractive STATE is still -1 to -1.5 diopters (about 20/40 to 20/60) and intense dedication could get us out of it.