Ritalin Helps Beat Cancer Fatigue

"jake" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 18:08:33 -0600, "SumBuny"
wrote:


"jake" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 23:34:11 -0600, "SumBuny"
wrote:


"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
. net...
"mark" wrote
Then why is my final perscription different from that generated
when
I
gaze into the automated machine?

Check with your optometrist. He might be using your astrological
chart. g

I was responding to SumBuny who claimed that there is no
objective medical test for nearsightedness. She is wrong.


You have yet to explain what they are...

here is an example

http://www.lpoproducts.com/Products/LPO231.asp

Topcon KR-8000 Supra Auto Kerato-Refractometer

The innovative design of the KR-8000 enables accurate, reliable
refraction and keratometric measurements within a pupil dilation as
narrow as 2.0mm. This means easier and more precise diagnostic results
when dealing with glaucoma, asymmetric pupils, or elderly patients.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

OK, so we can deal with glaucoma and asymetrical pupils....

....hypo- or hyper-myopia? Nope...don't see it here.....

The *closest* thing I see to these (which is what the clinical term for
near- and far-sightedness is) can be found in only one paragraph--and it
deals with the Instrument, not the patient's diagnosis...


Scenic fixation chart
This scenic color chart is adjustable in two brightness levels for
optimal results with large or small pupils, making eye fixation
easier. The auto-fogging function reduces the effects of instrument
myopia and patient accommodation.
^^^^^^^^


This machine does not claim to diagnose either condition...try again,
Buny

its an example of objective testing in optometrics..

The please show me what I missed in this site that shows that this machine
tests for these conditions...


nowdays myopia is tested objectively..

can you EVER admit you are in error?


I have asked you to show me in this site where I erred and missed the claim.

Buny

"jake" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 18:10:00 -0600, "SumBuny"
wrote:


"jake" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 23:33:47 -0600, "SumBuny"
wrote:


"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
. net...
"SumBuny" wrote
Tests for nearsightedness and for eyeglass prescriptions *are*
objective.
Perhaps you think that eyecharts are not objective, but most
optometrists
do all their diagnosis and testing with objective tests that
look
directly
at the lens in the eye. The eyechart is just a way of
double-checking
the results.
Not necessarily...why is it that they have you read the same chart
with
both
eyes? All it takes is someone with a good memory to screw that
one
up...not
to mention that one can use closure to comprehend a letter that is
still
very fuzzy...

You're not reading. You can foolishly try to trick the optometrist,
but
it won't work because he really uses other objective tests that do
not
involve the eyechart.

....such as....

such as

http://www.lpoproducts.com/Products/LPO231.asp



Please indicate the part of that page where the machine is claimed to be
able to diagnose hypo- and hyper-myopia...

believe what you wish..
your anaolgy is as flawed as the diabetes one..
you need some new ones..


myopia IS tested for objectively


Does this mean that you cannot show me where the claim is on this site *you*
provided? You said that I erred--*show me* where it is.
Buny

jake wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 21:52:50 -0500, mark wrote:


jake wrote:

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 20:03:53 -0500, mark wrote:



jake wrote:



bull****..
you provide ME with the objective tests !
you know damn wel there are none ..thats why all the drool about
eyetests and dragging in all theses unrelated problems..

Connor's computerized test of attention and reaction time
California Computerized Assessment Package
Vigil
Trail Making Tests
Wisconsin Card Sorting Test
Rey Ostereith Complex Figure
Digit Span
Letter Number Sequencing
Delis Kaplan tests of executive functioning
go - no go
Tower of London

The list goes on. Most are directly assessing the construct in question.
Just because you might not like the test does not mean that they are not
objective, standardized and well normed.


correct me if I am wrong but these appear to be batteries of
psychological tests..

You are wrong.


how odd..and how times change..

Not really. Your perspectives have remain rigidly fixed.

the lecturers in the dept of psychology at my University who taught me
some of them and examined us on them thought they were..

You will have to talk to the people who pay claims for insurance
companies. Claims are paid under a person's MEDICAL benefits, not
mental health.

oh..I was talking of science not moneymaking..

If in fact you attended those lectures, then someone must also have
taught you the sensitivity and specificity of these tests to various
organic deficits. That's based on science, not money making.
Reimbursement schedules are based on the science involved.

"jake" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 21:52:50 -0500, mark wrote:

Connor's computerized test of attention and reaction time
California Computerized Assessment Package
Vigil
Trail Making Tests
Wisconsin Card Sorting Test
Rey Ostereith Complex Figure
Digit Span
Letter Number Sequencing
Delis Kaplan tests of executive functioning
go - no go
Tower of London

The list goes on. Most are directly assessing the construct in
question.
Just because you might not like the test does not mean that they are
not
objective, standardized and well normed.


correct me if I am wrong but these appear to be batteries of
psychological tests..

You are wrong.

how odd..and how times change..
the lecturers in the dept of psychology at my University who taught me
some of them and examined us on them thought they were..

even odder is that the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test..for example
was taught as a psychological test of abstract reasoning to be
administered in cases of suspected brain damage..and IIRC long before
ADHD was even invented..

They were using this test in 1902?
http://www.faithchristianmin.org/articles/history.htm



George F. Still first described this disorder in lectures to the Royal
College of Physicians in 1902. He recognised that it was not "bad
parenting" but had a hereditary link. Others along the way included Laufer
and Denhoff (1957) and Chess (1960), who described the "Hyperkenic
Syndrome".

For something that is an "invented" disorder, it flies in the face that it
is *legally recognized* as a disability and those with it are *protected
under federal law* (ADA IDEA).




You can check with insurance companies (in the US)--they are reimbursed
as MEDICAL procedures.

oh..I was talking of science not moneymaking..


Those who are truly interested in *science* do not have problems providing
cites for assertions...*True Scientists* realise that this is part of the
process....

Oh, I am sorry, I thought you were interested in science---where are your
cites?
Buny

"jake" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 20:55:26 -0600, "SumBuny"
wrote:
"jake" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 18:08:33 -0600, "SumBuny"
wrote:


"jake" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 23:34:11 -0600, "SumBuny"
wrote:

This machine does not claim to diagnose either condition...try again,
Buny

its an example of objective testing in optometrics..

The please show me what I missed in this site that shows that this
machine
tests for these conditions...


nowdays myopia is tested objectively..

can you EVER admit you are in error?


I have asked you to show me in this site where I erred and missed the
claim.

sigh..clearly you cannot


I just re-read the entire link, and did not see a single line claiming
it---I admit I cannot see it and am asking you---begging you---to show me
where it is.

Then again, if even *you* cannot find it, it must not exist. I will take
any future failure on your part to provide such as your admission that there
is no claim that this machine can diagnose hyper- and hypo-myopia.

Buny

"jake" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 20:56:22 -0600, "SumBuny"
wrote:


"jake" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 18:10:00 -0600, "SumBuny"
wrote:


"jake" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 23:33:47 -0600, "SumBuny"
wrote:


"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
. net...
"SumBuny" wrote
Tests for nearsightedness and for eyeglass prescriptions
*are*
objective.
Perhaps you think that eyecharts are not objective, but most
optometrists
do all their diagnosis and testing with objective tests that
look
directly
at the lens in the eye. The eyechart is just a way of
double-checking
the results.
Not necessarily...why is it that they have you read the same
chart
with
both
eyes? All it takes is someone with a good memory to screw that
one
up...not
to mention that one can use closure to comprehend a letter that
is
still
very fuzzy...

You're not reading. You can foolishly try to trick the
optometrist,
but
it won't work because he really uses other objective tests that
do
not
involve the eyechart.

....such as....

such as

http://www.lpoproducts.com/Products/LPO231.asp



Please indicate the part of that page where the machine is claimed to
be
able to diagnose hypo- and hyper-myopia...

believe what you wish..
your anaolgy is as flawed as the diabetes one..
you need some new ones..


myopia IS tested for objectively


Does this mean that you cannot show me where the claim is on this site
*you*
provided? You said that I erred--*show me* where it is.

you were wrong and myopia is measured objectively..



I have repeated asked you to show me where the site you provided states
this.

I will take any future failure on your part to provide this information as
your agreement that there is no claim on the site you provided that this
machine objectively measures myopia.

Buny

"SumBuny" wrote
you were wrong and myopia is measured objectively..
I will take any future failure on your part to provide this information as
your agreement that there is no claim on the site you provided that this
machine objectively measures myopia.

I don't know why you find this so hard to believe. Just call up your
local optometrist and ask him. Some medical conditions can be
objectively diagnosed and treated.

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:43:32 +0000, jake wrote:

[SNIP]

I have heard better arguing in playgrounds. If you wish to be taken
seriously, as an adult, why not act like one.

am I not?

Bob, you flatter yourself if you think any of the few people who still bother to
read any of your unoriginal twaddle take you serious.

You are at best an occasional diversion.

"jake" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 21:45:30 -0600, "SumBuny"
wrote:

You can check with insurance companies (in the US)--they are
reimbursed
as MEDICAL procedures.

oh..I was talking of science not moneymaking..


Those who are truly interested in *science* do not have problems
providing
cites for assertions...*True Scientists* realise that this is part of the
process....

Oh, I am sorry, I thought you were interested in science---where are your
cites?

There are no need for any cites to prove they are a battery of
psychological tests..

Oh...we only have to take your word for it? The only one that I do that
with has the name of Yahweh...not "jake".

You refuse to take *anyone*'s word at face value--why are you demanding that
we do so for you?


Buny

"jake" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 21:45:30 -0600, "SumBuny"
wrote:

Oh, I am sorry, I thought you were interested in science---where are your
cites?

cites are not neccessarily the gold standard you seem to assune


How drug firms 'hoodwink' medical journals

http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/s...101706,00.html


Wow...and you are SO smart and education that you know all of this? I am
impressed...what is your degree in?

Buny