UV and Eyes

since dermatologists suggest that the skin be protected from the sun even
when it is cloudy, so too the eyes? however, i think it is not healthy to
wear sunglasses more than necessary because the brain likes everyday light
through the eyes..
comments?

The UV hardens the eye parts and causes premature aging just like it does
with skin. I have oftern wondered that photo–grey and dark sunglasses can
cause depression in people wearing them also. We need the sun on our
retinas, especially in the mornings say the SADS people.


"vincent" <vinc...@.....com> wrote in message
news:121cd.68439$hk6.1304...@news20.bellglobal.com...

"vincent" <vinc...@.....com> wrote:
Yes.
I think the brain does just fine behind sunglasses.

On 20 Oct 2004 04:47:38 –0700, g.ga...@agora.it (Rishi Giovanni Gatti)
posted:
I'm smart enough not to waste my time listening to that crap. Obviously you
have nothing whatsoever to support your nonsensical claims. Thanks for
playing. Better luck next time.
And you are claiming a cure, but you won't submit it to scientific
scrutiny? Have I got that right?

On 21 Oct 2004 04:38:48 –0700, g.ga...@agora.it (Rishi Giovanni Gatti)
posted:
Irrelevant. I asked for their publications. That is the science.

On 21 Oct 2004 04:40:29 –0700, g.ga...@agora.it (Rishi Giovanni Gatti)
posted:
But if you have a scientific mind, except a simple skeptical mind, you
may try this experiment and do yOUR OWN test.
And discover the bleedin' obvious? Sheeeesh!
Perhaps, for feeding you, but please show us the publications or keep
your nonsense to yourself. (Well at least off science fora)
Not sure what this means, sorry.

On 21 Oct 2004 04:46:29 –0700, g.ga...@agora.it (Rishi Giovanni Gatti)
posted:
I didn't say they were happy to be blind, I said they can lead happy,
healthy lives. They can, and they do. Move on.
What is the difference?
If you don't know, then there is not much point in continuing.
There are plenty of happy blind people. I know one very closely. She
is certainly not happy to have gone blind at 30. She is, however, a
very happy person.
Simple. What difficulty are YOU having? Perhaps it gets lost in the
translation? You can be unhappy to be blind, yet lead a happy life,
surely.
General happiness, and being happy about a specific condition are two
different things.

g.ga...@agora.it (Rishi Giovanni Gatti) wrote:
Then do so and kindly shut the hell up until you've found them.

Carey Gregory <tiredofspam...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<6fnfp0hoe8tgim4qkmh0p2092eev268...@4ax.com>...
Who is this girl?
Why doesn't she stay quiet???
Please, kindly, be quiet.

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 21:27:22 –0800, The Real Bev
<bash...@myrealbox.com> posted:
Sorry, I must be bored.
I'll give it up and play with myself instead :–)

Haven't you noticed that you're arguing with the resident loon and are
the only one still taking him seriously?
You answer me: why don't you try to cure your presbyopia?
Why not?
You please answer.

I wonder why you think that. What about something as basic as melatonin
(wake–sleep balancing)? I know that my body craves daylight..

Certainly, the eyestrain that comes with reduced light should not be
dismissed either. The body as well as the eyes love light. Many senior
citizens who never wore sunglasses, who spent real time outdoors (not like
the office workers of today), have good, healthy eyes that need only
spectacle correction.

g.ga...@agora.it (Rishi Giovanni Gatti) wrote:
I must admit that at first I thought you were a bit weird, but serious. Now
I see you're simply a semi–creative troll. Congratulations on having
successfully trolled me and quite a few others.
Now kindly go troll elsewhere.

On 27 Oct 2004 15:21:56 –0700, g.ga...@agora.it (Rishi Giovanni Gatti)
posted:
You have the solution at your finger tips. Point us to verifiable
evidence for your claims.
You mean it can't be understood?
Well that is no surprise.
We don't even know what was wrong with you.
Please show verifiable evidence of ANY cure.
That means publications in a reputable scientific journal.
Replicable published studies.
Yep, all the cures I've ever had will be in the literature somewhere.
Absolutely not!!!
Not true. Many people get cured even nowadays.
Evidence?
And miracles happen? Sorry, science needs verifiable evidence.
Anyone can put anything they like on their website.
Please give us some reputable publications of this cure. Are you
claiming that such a revolutionary cure exists but has not been
published? Sorry, I don't believe it!
Show some replicable published studies.
Belief has no part in science.
No reason to believe that it would be beneifical and some of the
things you've advocated are downright damaging.
Without good evidence, it will not, sorry.
Every point in the World. It's how we know what works and what doesn't
Of course not! Get a grip! Showing reputable publications is the only
way, I'm afraid. So start typing!
And they won't publish with very good reason.
References please?
How? Did they go around the world with an eraser? This story is just
bullshit, sorry.
Totally useless. Why don't you publish your miracles properly?
Then give scientific evidence and quit the talk of "belief".
No mechanism has been postulated, and no case of cure ever observed.
You are wrong, the mechanism was postulated 400 hundred years ago by a
man named Arlt.
But lets see, it doesn't fit with modern physiology?
So publish this, and stop trying to sell snake oil!
I have no need. And you are claiming all blindness can be cured.
Because it's not been submitted to scientific scrutiny by scientific
peers? You know, PUBLISHED!
Well publish the results. Your refusal to do this only makes folk very
skeptical of your motives.
Go to any library and photocopy the studies. They could not have been
erased as you claim. That is ridiculous. Who do you think was behind
the great journal purge? The evil glasses manufacturers?
I have used 1.5 diopters for presbyopia since early forties (20y)
(like most folk) and don't use sunglasses for totally non–ophthalmic
reasons.

We have a publication boy here. Then when shown he denounces it in some way.
TROLL alert!
TROLL alert!
TROLL alert!
TROLL alert!


"Dunne E. Dawe" <ne...@never.again> wrote in message
news:c8gkn0h5dtrf8cm9evd21ecfjb56r40...@4ax.com...

I thought myself as an eccentric, but your logic is sincerely very
eccentric!
I would like to talk to this blind person and offer my free help to
relieve the condition.
Almost all blind people are curable.
The cure is difficult because they probably have been convinced and
manipulated by criminals that do not believe in the real tratmente of
eyes adn mind, so they may refuse to try the cure.
Anyway I am available, feel free to have her exchange communication by
email with me if she wants.
That's even more difficult for me to grasp.

"senior citizens" over 40?


"abonas" <abo...@never.ever> wrote in message
news:6n3cd.69022$hk6.1323...@news20.bellglobal.com...

g.ga...@agora.it (Rishi Giovanni Gatti) wrote:
20/20 or better until a few years ago, at which point I began to need
reading glasses for small print.
48
Of course.
I did.

g.ga...@agora.it (Rishi Giovanni Gatti) wrote:
Then kindly post it in newsgroups dedicated to 80 year old information.

Dunne E. Dawe <ne...@never.again> wrote:
Your decision, of course, but yessiree, I think he's but a troll.

He has written two books.
AGAIN....Titles? Author? ISBN?
Anything independant of Dr Bates and his immediate family and/or
associtates?
Cya
Simon

Dunne E. Dawe <ne...@never.again> wrote in message news:<0s71o0d1lndh6p87rpdge87r08dfamg...@4ax.com>...
No, I mean you WON'T BE INTERESTED IN LEARNING IT.
Anyway there is no evidence in fact.
It is a surprise: people improve and finally are cured, but the
evidence of this YOU have to seek out. That's why you should be
surprised. Unless you search you won't find.
We don't even know what was wrong with you.
Please show verifiable evidence of ANY cure.
That means publications in a reputable scientific journal.
What is verifiable?
OK, bring to me 100 people with the SAME difficulty in vision, and
then other 100 that are not under treatment, and we can do the
double–check.
Problem is: there AREN'T EVEN TWO PERSONS WITH THE SAME difficulty in
vision.
Are your cures verifiable?
Not the persons who actually you cured.
Is one case of imperfect sight equal to any other?
That's why.
Evidence is with the people cured, I have referred you about three
cases, but there are many more of course: people discard the glasses
and do very well.
Yesterday I went to a meeting with Eng. Fabio Marchesi who wrote a
book about quantum physics, and had previously wrote a book on LIGHT.
He designs whole spectrum lamplights, with UVA and UVB and maintains
that the reason for so much illnesses in the world today is the
deprivation of UVA and UVB rays.
He is a scientist and the bibliography of his book is quite full.
You should investigate a bit more. Search the Internet for this man.
If you don't believe, you won't be convinced either.
I understand, but your science handles dead bodies, does not handle
human beings.
What is the point of a belief based on dead bodies, or non–human
bodies? How can you draw a line, a connection between realms so
different?
Is a monkey a conscious being like a man?
Please, demonstrate to me the link.
Anyway, why don't you try for yourself?
No damage whatever if you follow directions. If you don't follow
diractions, just a delay or a nullifying of the benefits, but no
damage.
It will be the only evidence useful for your own life.
The good evidence you should build for yourself. Why not?
What is the point in the evidence of others?
You cannot say that IF you do not know HOW it works THEN it does not
work...
Of course not! Get a grip! Showing reputable publications is the only
way, I'm afraid. So start typing!
No no, nobody wil publish that, it is against your own conviction, so
they won't publish anything.
And people still go on seeking for relief from the glasses and the
imperfect sight.
Why don't you accepted your presbyopic difficulty?
Why are you seeking relief?
Dr. Bates published many statistics with double–blind control gourps
in the 1910–1920 years on medical journals.
Search the Internet.
New York Medical Journal, Border of Education, etc.
Since he was successful, they removed it.
Well, if you think that dozens of articles were all bullshit, it may
be. Take responsibility for your assertion, though.
Totally useless. Why don't you publish your miracles properly?
I never speak of miracles, please be scientific.
No miracles.
I have said to you that if you bring me 100+100 person with the SAME
scientific evidence of imperfect sight, then we can treat them
SCIENTIFICALLY and see what is the value fo the cure.
Again, I am publishing now!
What has been erased is not the articles but the SNELLEN CHART on the
walls.
I'm interested in the sunglasses thing, please can you tell me more
about this. Perhaps I mismatched you for some other idiot here
writing.
At least you have spared yourself from the idiocy of sunglasses.

Carey Gregory <tiredofspam...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<4be1n0piie9opd8iqkubg0lf9stg7p7...@4ax.com>...
No. Sun is necessary for the eyes.
however, i think it is not healthy to
wear sunglasses more than necessary because the brain likes everyday light
through the eyes..
comments?
No, the brain needs sunlight if you want to use it more than how do the idiots.

"abonas" <abo...@never.ever> wrote in message news:<6n3cd.69022$hk6.1323...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
Spectacle correction is a fact of stupid people.
If they were more intelligent, they could have enquired in how to
discard glasses forever and get fine eyes all life long.
See Oliver Wendell Holmes famous "The Autocrat at the Breakfast Table"
and search for "dioptrics". You will be surprised.
To get more info, visit my website http://TheCentralFixation.com

"Jan" <shantig...@luukku.com> wrote:
So what?

"Rishi Giovanni Gatti" <g.ga...@agora.it> wrote
Come back when you're 45.
–MT

You can't read anyway and you know it.


"Dunne E. Dawe" <ne...@never.again> wrote in message
news:o7gkn09dfpsgj2hdaema60l9bk4ulbl...@4ax.com...

On 19 Oct 2004 12:52:35 –0700, g.ga...@agora.it (Rishi Giovanni Gatti)
posted:
Can you post some published studies of these cures? I've never seen
any.
What a load of utter garbage! Put a correcting lens in front of the
eyes, and this changes the brain's interpretation?
Presbyopia makes my close vision blurry. I suspect it makes everyone
elses so, except you, apparently.

abonas wrote:
senior
like
That is true, light is important. You can provide protection for the
eyes by eating foods rich in carotenoids lutein and zeaxanthin e.g.
spinach, romaine lettuce, orange bell peppers ans so on. Lutein and
zeaxanthin seem to protect against UV–radiation.
Jan

"bonas" <bona...@noroute.ever> wrote:
I think the brain does just fine behind sunglasses.
Through a lifetime of wearing sunglasses with absolutely no negative
effects, along with millions of other people.
Since when do sunglasses block all sunlight? A good pair of sunglasses
filter UV rays and reduce light intensity and glare, but by no means do they
block sunlight (duh, how could you see if they did?).

On 20 Oct 2004 04:42:43 –0700, g.ga...@agora.it (Rishi Giovanni Gatti)
posted:
Well read it again. Your question about the seriouness of a newsgroup
is nonsense! Are you always serious? Hope not.

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 11:15:39 –0400, "Gymmy Bob" <nospamm...@bite.me>
posted:
What are you on about? You sound like a sock puppet of that gohde
person?
What is a "publication boy"? Where has anyone shown any publications
of this old eye claim? It has been around for decades if not
centuries. You'd think that it would have had something published by
now.
How else can you know that a claim is valid unless you see how others
have been able to replicate the results, all in a peer reviewed
environment?

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 11:36:24 –0400, "Piezo Guru" <gbu...@honmail.com>
posted:
Well apparently. You claim that the below list of persons contains
publications. I can't see them. Could you please do me a favour and
point them out?

Like I said "you cannot read" and have just proven it one more time.


"Dunne E. Dawe" <ne...@never.again> wrote in message
news:01non0d3a8qh0i7a63m9cbe7nrk13em...@4ax.com...

g.ga...@agora.it (Rishi Giovanni Gatti) wrote:
Says who? Citations please.
Sunglasses don't block sunlight. You would be blinded by them if they did.
Get a clue.

"Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> wrote:
lol... My thoughts exactly.
After a lifetime of 20/20, it was a rude shock the first time I realized I
was holding a book out at arm's length.

Carey Gregory wrote:
My ophthalmologist: "We don't usually do +2.25 diopeters on bifocals
for people before their 60s, but you do work up kinda close, so..."
Uggh.
Steve
––
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718–258–5001

Don't let the door hit ya' on the way out troll.


"Dunne E. Dawe" <ne...@never.again> wrote in message
news:lcmon0lhenoqaoa1761dn6nu06r38kr...@4ax.com...

"Carey Gregory" <tiredofspam...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:nstcn0lnkcb7dkt001gb7iv1b0vokgc...@4ax.com...
My father claimed he had to get glasses for reading... or longer arms.

Carey Gregory <tiredofspam...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<nstcn0lnkcb7dkt001gb7iv1b0vokgc...@4ax.com>...
YES, I have many clients who are recovering from their own presbyopia
thanks to rest methods.
My business is expanding, and I am very happy.
I won't be as stupid as yourself who surrendered to the
idiot–businessman who sold to you the spectacles.
Today I saw the line of letters calibrated for 20/10 at 4 meters,
although I used the powerful mastercolour 150watt light.
I can read 0,5 mm tall letters in a range from 6 cm to 35 cm.
I am not satisfied though.
I want at least reach 3 cm and 50 or 60 cm distance of that kind of
type from my eyes.
It's just a question of mental relaxation, the eyes will follow.
As of presbyopia, I don't believe in that crap.
If your theories where right, it would have been impossible for me to
read 20/10 at 4 meters and still in a matter of half a second read 0,5
mm letters at 5 cm.
The ciliary and the lens could not possibly do that, according to your
own statements.
Now these are facts.
Just like me, many other people can do that.
The fact that nobody of you idiots have never tried, or even thought
about it, does not mean that it cannot be done.
Prepare for a revolution, because when we will start to produce video
files on the Internet reporting these facts, people will start to
doubt you and your criminal profession, and start to think different.
So beware.

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:37:25 –0400, Carey Gregory
<tiredofspam...@comcast.net> posted:
Ughhh Get away from me, you diseased creature, you...
I wonder why Rishi's "cure" is not published yet.
Perhaps it appears in "Snake Oil Monthly"?

Carey Gregory <tiredofspam...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<cnpln09vhg4prg9i15cl3278lprlqb0...@4ax.com>...
I was just reporting about the medical publications made by Bates 80 years ago.
Im' sorry that I did not included reference.
If you do not know that, you should be getting to know.
Search...

"Rishi Giovanni Gatti" <g.ga...@agora.it> wrote
"Medical publications" should mean articles reviewed by a panel of editors
who actually have credentials and degrees in a relevant field. As you know,
any idiot can write a book and get it published for the right price.
–MT

Gymmy Bob wrote:
How do you know this? Do some simple Google search and you'll find
easily that lutein and zeaxanthin protect the eyes against
UV–radiation.
Jan

Are you listed in Qucakswatch.com yet?


"Rishi Giovanni Gatti" <g.ga...@agora.it> wrote in message
news:c72b1499.0410201415.1e12f...@posting.google.com...
news:<nstcn0lnkcb7dkt001gb7iv1b0vokgc...@4ax.com>...
"Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> wrote:
"Rishi Giovanni Gatti" <g.ga...@agora.it> wrote
Better luck to you, you are diseased with presbyopia, not me.
Come back when you're 45.
lol... My thoughts exactly.
After a lifetime of 20/20, it was a rude shock the first time I realized
I was holding a book out at arm's length.

Dunne E. Dawe <ne...@never.again> wrote in message news:<bk8en0ta52g86227krqrn94vblli344...@4ax.com>...
It will be amongst the others cures.
Something has already been published.
But since I don't trust the medical men in this field, I am not
interested very much in letting them examine me.
Perhaps they will find some kind of strange disease they are so apt to
invent new names for...
These are tricky people.
First they create the disease, then they offer a cure, which is not a
cure at all, but a slavery (to glasses, to drugs, to operations,
etcetera...).
They can go relaxedly down the drain.
I just write here to pick up a very FEW intelligent people who have
had a glimpse of intelligence to follow the true cure of the imperfect
sight.
I know that it's not for all, it's for very few intelligent people, in
these times.
Perhaps in the future it will be more easy to gather more consensus.
What to do?
We have still medical men who believe that the pupil and the lens have
something to do with accommodation, which is a thing totally
antiscientific and stupid...
Come to realize that, and you will see.

Carey Gregory <tiredofspam...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<mcc3n05ebe3qdiheintcd37pep14n46...@4ax.com>...
How is your eyesight, for near and far?
How old are you?
Con you stand the light of day without sunglasses?
Tell the truth please.

There is no need of any supplementation if you are in good health and
are accustomed to the natural sun during the day.
There is a man in the US who is living without eating since nine years
after three years of study of the sun–gazing ancient method of
meditation.
He needs only water.
Now please explain.

No. Sun is necessary for the eyes.
Your intelligence says so!
What citations do you need?
Try to live one month without sunlight then tell me.
Get a clue: you can do very well without the sunglasses.
Dont' follow the path of the idiots and the corporations.

"GMCarter" <f...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:j05dn01pskrg2384indclg0059seh99...@4ax.com...
....
Help what? I was posting about age–related presbiopia, not skin carcinoma.
Does Ashwagandha make your arms grow longer?

On 23 Oct 2004 14:25:25 –0700, g.ga...@agora.it (Rishi Giovanni Gatti)
posted:
There are plenty of happy blind people. I know one very closely. She
is certainly not happy to have gone blind at 30. She is, however, a
very happy person.
What condition do you think this person has?
Can you repair a destroyed retina?
Where are your publications?
That is totally silly and rather unhelpful.
I doubt you could read her language, and as she is blind, she couldn't
read yours, and she does not use a computer at all. Even if she could
afford one.
General happiness, and being happy about a specific condition are two
different things.
Perhaps it loses something in the translation.
But, do you agree that no–one has a perfect life? (I don't know
anyone.) So there will be a few things in everyone's life that they
are not happy about, so by your thinking, no–one in the world can be
"happy" and that is certainly not my experience. I see many happy
people with things in their lives that they would not be happy about.
Do you have a native English speaker to help you through this? Perhaps
there are two different words in your language that mean the same word
"happy" in English?

g.ga...@agora.it (Rishi Giovanni Gatti) wrote:
Oh, you're so cute. And I suppose you think calling me a girl is quite the
insult.
<yawn> Been called worse, sweetheart.

Carey Gregory <tiredofspam...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<msbip01m53pdsunas416b4ro1npjpj4...@4ax.com>...
Sorry, I thought Carey was a female name, or your name is Gregory???
That's the mismatch.
Sorry.
How is your eyesight?
Are you not interested in the discussion?

"Rishi Giovanni Gatti" <g.ga...@agora.it> wrote
Monkeys do. Dogs do. You will too, when you're 50.
–MT

"Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<eSzhd.16504$ta5.10...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
I won't.

"Rishi Giovanni Gatti" <g.ga...@agora.it> wrote
Why monkeys do not get prsbyopic, or not?
Monkeys do. Dogs do. You will too, when you're 50.
What you won't do is admit it.
In fact, you have already confessed it. You offered to produce autorefractor
readings showing 6 diopters of accommodation. Why couldn't you show 12 or 14
D? Why can't you accommodate now as you did when you were 12 years old?
Maybe it's because your oblique muscles are getting weak?
–MT

"Dunne E. Dawe" <ne...@never.again> wrote
Don't be surprised when this greasy troll DOES claim he can cure
neuroretinal vision loss. When he can't, it's the patient's fault, and when
WE can't, we're criminals.
Apparently Italian practice by a different standard.
–MT

"Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<uWVed.6669$5i5....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
So the problem is in the PANEL, not in the truth?

Now, sunglasses cause blindness?


"Carey Gregory" <tiredofspam...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ckc3n0hu6pkf1rpo7oslvujkreccoap...@4ax.com...
did.

Carey Gregory wrote:
What about something as basic as melatonin
(wake–sleep balancing)? I know that my body craves daylight..
sunglasses
do they
Everyone knows that sunglasses _reduce_ the amount of sunlight received
by the brain through the eyes. There are plenty of nutritional means to
protect the eyes. By protecting the eyes through nutritional means
(e.g. lutein and zeaxanthin) you get the benefits of light and the
necessary protection the eyes need. You need sunglasses only in extreme
conditions.
Jan

You cannot undo UV damage by supplementation.


"Jan" <shantig...@luukku.com> wrote in message
news:1097993655.518966.317...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Gymmy Bob wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/3ujak
Jan

"Piezo Guru" <gbu...@honmail.com> wrote in message news:<1097977774.5vwc1QJcbGbFTymLeVI...@teranews>...
Yes, to some extent.

"Rishi Giovanni Gatti" <g.ga...@agora.it> wrote
It's simple. Some people will believe anything.
–MT

n 29 Oct 2004 03:57:01 –0700, g.ga...@agora.it (Rishi Giovanni Gatti)
posted:
Of course not, if you can't demonsrate its efficacy.
Why play silly buggers? Why would you not give the evidence gladly, if
you are not a kook?
We don't even know what was wrong with you.
Please show verifiable evidence of ANY cure.
That means publications in a reputable scientific journal.
What is verifiable?
Replicable published studies.
So no–one has done this already? Why not? It's been decades, hasn't
it?
There are millions of 50 yearolds with presbyopia,why haven't you
found a dozen or so and done a clincal trial?
I suspect the reason is because it doesn't work.
If it did, you would have been rushed off your feet.
Are your cures verifiable?
Yep, all the cures I've ever had will be in the literature somewhere.
I've cured no–one. I'm saying all the cures I've benefited from are
well documented.
Is one case of imperfect sight equal to any other?
Absolutely not!!!
Why what? Are you seriously claiming you can't find a few dozen 50
year olds with presbyopia?
Evidence is with the people cured, I have referred you about three
cases, but there are many more of course: people discard the glasses
and do very well.
And miracles happen? Sorry, science needs verifiable evidence.
Even with the huge increase in these radiations in the temperate zones
from the thinning of the ozone layer?
So? Anyone can list a whole bunch of studies. Do they back his thesis?
Well you give us the URLs of the studies if you are so sure of this.
If you don't believe, you won't be convinced either.
Belief has no part in science.
My science handles no one. It handles evidence.
Knowledge is the end result. If you have something to assert, please
give us the science to back it.
Yes.
Forget monkeys. If you claim presbyopia can be reveresed, show us the
evidence.
Anyway, why don't you try for yourself?
No reason to believe that it would be beneifical and some of the
things you've advocated are downright damaging.
So show us the publications. Otherwise all you are saying is just
empty babble.
It will be the only evidence useful for your own life.
Without good evidence, it will not, sorry.
Too busy. Are you saying there is no evidence yet? You want me to be
the first "guinea pig"?
What is the point in the evidence of others?
Every point in the World. It's how we know what works and what doesn't
Of course not. You must observe that it works under controlled
scientific conditions. This will allways be published for replication
and verification purposes. So where are the publications?
Of course not! Get a grip! Showing reputable publications is the only
way, I'm afraid. So start typing!
No no, nobody wil publish that, it is against your own conviction, so
they won't publish anything.
And they won't publish with very good reason.
Yes, and pay all sorts of quacks for all sorts of "cures" that have
NOT been published. Tell you something?
I do. I wear glasses for it when reading, and staring at this bloody
screen. Have done for 20 years.
Relief? I don't feel any pressure.
Dr. Bates published many statistics with double–blind control gourps
in the 1910–1920 years on medical journals.
References please?
You are the one claiming this bullshit. If you can't show any
verification for it, that's all it is!
Volume, page, date?
Since he was successful, they removed it.
How? Did they go around the world with an eraser? This story is just
bullshit, sorry.
No, read the words. I said the story of erasure was bullshit. I've not
seen the erased articles. Big secret?
Totally useless. Why don't you publish your miracles properly?
I never speak of miracles, please be scientific.
No miracles.
Then give scientific evidence and quit the talk of "belief".
So you are saying that this has NOT been done before?
So publish this, and stop trying to sell snake oil!
Where?
Go to any library and photocopy the studies. They

No, I mean you WON'T BE INTERESTED IN LEARNING IT.
How can demonstrate an efficiency which MUST HAPPEN IN YOUR OWN
MIND???
It is a surprise: people improve and finally are cured, but the
evidence of this YOU have to seek out. That's why you should be
surprised. Unless you search you won't find.
Read above.
OK, bring to me 100 people with the SAME difficulty in vision, and
then other 100 that are not under treatment, and we can do the
double–check.
You answered, there are not two people with the same difficulty in
vision.
Now you contradict yourself???
Are your cures verifiable?
Yep, all the cures I've ever had will be in the literature somewhere.
Not the persons who actually you cured.
Which cures you have benefited???
We can find them very easily but no one of them whould have THE SAME
DIFFICULTY.
So your "science" becomes difficult.
Someone will be good in reading at light, another in the night,
another will like the sun, another not, and so on...
He designs whole spectrum lamplights, with UVA and UVB and maintains
that the reason for so much illnesses in the world today is the
deprivation of UVA and UVB rays.
Yes of course, he produces UVA and UVB lamps to use indoors and is
successful.
He is a scientist and the bibliography of his book is quite full.
Why not? He has many satisfied clients, and not complaining clients as
the od have.
I understand, but your science handles dead bodies, does not handle
human beings.
What evidence? Rats, monkeys???
"equal people"?
Find me two "equal people".
The science for YOU you have to provide yourself. It's not difficult.
If you are presbyopic, remove the glasses and exercise yourself with
reading very fine print in good light, with patience and perseverance.
You will see letters get clearer day by day.
Thanks for having me made aware of this great disease that happened to
man.
Please, demonstrate to me the link.
Why monkeys do not get prsbyopic, or not?
The good evidence you should build for yourself. Why not?
Too busy is not a scientific answer.
You cannot say that IF you do not know HOW it works THEN it does not
work...
WHAT IF IT WORKS UNDER UNCONTROLLED SCIENTIFIC CONDITIONS?
You would say that it does not work???
And people still go on seeking for relief from the glasses and the
imperfect sight.
At least they try and someone is successful.
With glasses all are not successful.
Why don't you accepted your presbyopic difficulty?
This is not accepting. You should have accepted WITHOUT the
eyeglasses?
Why are you seeking relief?
SO YOU RE HAPPY WITH YOUR EYEGLASSES? BE HONEST!!!
New York Medical Journal, Border of Education, etc.
search on the "newspaperarchive.com"
At least you have spared yourself from the idiocy of sunglasses.
Good.

g.ga...@agora.it (Rishi Giovanni Gatti) wrote:
You will when you grow up.
Me and my "criminal profession?" Apparently you've mistaken me for one of
those highly dangerous, felonious eye–care professionals. Sorry, dimwit,
but I have nothing to do with eye care.
But my profession did provide you with the internet where you can blather
your incoherent nonsense. After listening to you and the seemingly endless
parade of idiots like you for umpteen years, I'm thinking maybe that was a
criminal thing after all.

Carey Gregory <tiredofspam...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<488en0pelo1e3qhv6v1qhcnl13l0sge...@4ax.com>...
It's evident that I was talking to the criminals of the
eye–profession.
I don't think you have any professional skill, perhaps you have a job,
you can be a worker, but to be a professional needs some intelligence,
which you lack, because you surrnedered so quickly to the stupid thing
of wearing eyeglasses for reading knowing perfectly well that after a
few minutes your eyes will feel much worse and what you could see
before using the glasses now it has gone forever in the mud of mental
tension.

I do not know, but anyway, why don't we try?
Absolutely not, but she can.
Here http://TheCentralFixation.com
Anyway I am available, feel free to have her exchange communication by
email with me if she wants.
You could read my emails to her.
General happiness, and being happy about a specific condition are two
different things.
That's even more difficult for me to grasp.
I only question the fact that being blind and not knowing about the
possibility of a cure is simply a condition of unhappiness.
Now you present the facts about blindness discovered by Bates and
others, and perhaps the girl may feel herself very happy to start the
treatment and get some degree of useful vision.
Then she will be VERY VERY HAPPY, although the handicap.
The books are made from Americans, in English language, you should not
feel any hindrance.
The fact which is strange is why you insist that a cure is not
possible?
How can you prove a negative proposition like that?
Just say that you don't know, and stop.
When I removed my –5 glasses, I was quite blind, specially for distant
writings.

On 21 Oct 2004 04:55:25 –0700, g.ga...@agora.it (Rishi Giovanni Gatti)
posted:
Well tell us, so we can see if anyone else in theworld can replicate
your results.
I wonder why this does not surprise me.
All those names bother you? Perhaps you need to do some more study?
Who are?The whole world?
Paranoid isn't this?
Really? Why won't you publish your results? Then if there is anything
at all in it, someone else will surely be able to replicate it, and
you will be famous. The people who would like to throw away their
glasses are many orders of magnitude more numerous than the few who
want to sell you glasses.
What has intelligence to do with it? If it works, it works. You know
how to propagate your ideas. What is stopping you?
If it works, of course. Make with the publication!
I don't think you understad simple optics.

Come to realize that, and you will see.
I don't think you understand simple words and the simple truth that is
there.
I had been victim of you all stupid–thinkers who think they understand
optics.
They cyclopleged me and found half a dioptre of myopic elongation.
Then it was –5, in four years.
The it stopped, and I know why: I surrendered and stopped the strain
to see, unconsciously.
Then I removed glasses for some time in 1990.
I measured –4.
But was not aware of the truth, so I spent twelve years without
glasses, using them undercorrected for driving, a most stupid error
the "Bates fraudolent teachers" are still nowadays propagating, and
for this they should be burned at the stake.
Now I can see 20/10 if the chart is well lighted.
So what?
Where should I go to let me be examined?
At least I think I have the right to choose an intelligent examiner,
don't you think?
You provide one person who is intelligent and can examine me and I
will go.
If you offer me the criminals like Mr. Tyrner who sell glasses to
people instead to teach them the truth about vision, I simply reject
them.
I simply don't truste the, they have no authority over me.
I don't recognize any authority over them.
They should ask to enquire my case and that of others.
Not vice versa.
You should drop the conditioning of the glasses–seller
industrial–medical complex, and start to think in a new way.
It is for your's sake, not mine.

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 22:41:36 –0400, "Gymmy Bob" <nospamm...@bite.me>
posted:
OK, I agree. Now can you point to the publications below?

On 20 Oct 2004 15:15:05 –0700, g.ga...@agora.it (Rishi Giovanni Gatti)
posted:
Just your anecdote? Or have you published this so that others can see
if they get the same results? If the answer is that you haven't, then
you know what conclusion we jump to?
Doesn't mean a thing. There's one born every minute.
And equally, the idiot business man who sold you a quack"cure"
And?
Have you told us your age?
And you are the only one in step? Please show us the publication, as
this is the only thing that is believable.
Why exactly?
Again, why?
So you say. But again, the publications, please.
So?
Huh?
Why go to videos on the internet? They mean nothing.
It's the publications and only the publications that count!
My thoughts exactly!

Carey Gregory <tiredofspam...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<qmnon0hb59kapqmv3no2g63e04he3r0...@4ax.com>...
This group still has glasses prescribed as a means to correct or cure
the imperfect sight.
By the way, as Otis may say, this is 400 old practice...

Ashwagandha might help. see abstract.
George M. Carter
**
Mathur S, Kaur P, Sharma M, Katyal A, Singh B, Tiwari M, Chandra R.
The treatment of skin carcinoma, induced by UV B radiation, using
1–oxo–5beta, 6beta–epoxy–witha–2–enolide, isolated from the roots of
Withania somnifera, in a rat model. Phytomedicine. 2004
Jul;11(5):452–460.
Ambedkar Centerfor Biomedical Research, University of Delhi, Delhi 110
007, India.
Histopathological studies of the cutaneous tissues of Wistar rats
exposed to UV B radiation (294 nm) for 20 days and rats exposed to UV
B radiation for 20 days, followed by topical treatment with benzoyl
peroxide, a tumor promoter (20 mg/animal/0.2 ml acetone) twice a week
for 1 month, and kept under observation for 12 weeks, demonstrate the
development of malignancy. Pretreatment of the animals with
1–oxo–5beta, 6beta–epoxy–witha–2–enolide (20 mg/kg bwt.), isolated
from the roots of Withania somnifera, prior to exposing the animals to
UV B radiation, prevents the incidence of skin carcinoma. The
administration of 1–oxo–5beta, 6beta–epoxy–witha–2–enolide, to the
animals after exposing them to UV B radiation/UV B radiation and
benzoyl peroxide also prevents the occurrence of malignancy in the
cutaneous tissue. Immunohistochemical staining of the cutaneous
tissues of rats exposed to UV B radiation show the presence of p53 +
foci (clusters of cells containing the mutated p53 protein), whereas
an absence of p53 + foci is observed in animals pretreated with
1–oxo–5beta, 6beta–epoxy–witha–2–enolide. These results prove that
1–oxo–5beta, 6beta–epoxy–witha–2–enolide has the potential for acting
as an effective agent to prevent the incidence of skin carcinoma
induced by UV B radiation.

On 25 Oct 2004 09:19:10 –0700, g.ga...@agora.it (Rishi Giovanni Gatti)
posted:
What condition do you think this person has?
How?
Can you point me to a publication that verifies this?
Where are your publications?
Sorry, no peer reviewed scientific publications or even links to same
here. Any idiot can write and publish a book.
Anyway I am available, feel free to have her exchange communication by
email with me if she wants.
I doubt you could read her language, and as she is blind, she couldn't
read yours, and she does not use a computer at all. Even if she could
afford one.
Phone is too expensive, sorry. I don't understand her language either,
nor she mine.
General happiness, and being happy about a specific condition are two
different things.
That's even more difficult for me to grasp.
Perhaps it loses something in the translation.
But, do you agree that no–one has a perfect life? (I don't know
anyone.) So there will be a few things in everyone's life that they
are not happy about, so by your thinking, no–one in the world can be
"happy" and that is certainly not my experience. I see many happy
people with things in their lives that they would not be happy about.
Do you have a native English speaker to help you through this? Perhaps
there are two different words in your language that mean the same word
"happy" in English?
Nope. That is the indomitability of the human spirit.
If there is no cure, it would be cruel to hint at one. Sorry.
Because I have seen NO evidence that it is. NO–ONE has ever been cured
of her problem.
YOU can prove the positive, and until you do (which you haven't yet) I
will stick to the negative.
If you had evidence and gave it, I would believe you. So far you have
avoided all entreaties to give any evidence.
So?

Again you believe in rats, not in your own intelligence.
If this is science, then all is done.
What else is left???
GMCarter <f...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<j05dn01pskrg2384indclg0059seh99...@4ax.com>...

HCN wrote:
"Ashwagandha," if I remember correctly, is Hindi for "Reading Glasses"

"neil0502" <neil0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:x2Gdd.33139$QJ3.22...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
LOL!!!
In the introduction to the 2n edition of his 1950's book on Fads and
Fallacies, Martin Gardner commented that the letters he got from the
champions of Bates showed they needed reading glasses:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/–/0486203948/

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 19:24:40 –0400, Carey Gregory
<tiredofspam...@comcast.net> posted:
That was my thought on this as well, but being a newbie here, I was
allowing a longer rope. Time to stop feeding, perhaps?

"Dunne E. Dawe" wrote:
Good idea. I guess the "Welcome to s.m.v." posting is too subtle.
There be loons here, and arguing with them just makes them happy.
––
Cheers, Bev
==================================================================
"Don't sweat it –– it's not real life. It's only ones and zeroes."
–– spaf (1988?)

This story (below) sounds like something off the cover of Weekly World News!
This would not be biologically possible. Where did you get this story?? If
this were possible, you wouldn't have millions of people dying of starvation
in impoverished regions of the world.
Jennifer<