Eyeglasses and retail optometry are scams

[Gamolon]

I hope he himself becomes a billionaire selling the truth about retail optometry!

I guess you're right!

Deliberately making it sound like a daunting task by implying that you'll have to sift through 1,200 pieces of information, spread out all over the place, and then determine which works best for you. Yet for $4,300, Jake will graciously condense those 1,200 pieces down to the BEST POSSIBLE RESOURCES AND TOOLS, and he'll throw in 6 Zoom chats to boot!!!!

What a bargain!

Why don't you save those poor souls a ton of money and send out your condensed paragraph of the essentials?

 

[Gamolon]

I hope he himself becomes a billionaire selling the truth about retail optometry!

Yup! He certainly figured out a system! Suck money out of people and then turn around and invest some of it into the very scam you rail about!

WOOHOO!!!

 

[arthwollipot]

In the meantime, thousands of us or more have performed our own experiments, and the jury is in.

No you haven't. Not a single one of you has performed a scientifically valid experiment and had the results published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Trying something to see what happens is no more an experiment than doing a google search is research.

 

[hecd2]

So you say. Do you have any evidence to back up that assertion or is it just another claim you have pulled out of your backside

Yes. It's all over the thread, with links and references, plus my own personal experience overcoming a disease with supposedly "genetic" causes.

Except it isn't "all over the thread". You haven't been able to present a single piece of published evidence that the one study in children and the one study in juvenile tree shrews that you have referenced transfer to human adults. Nowhere in the thread. To say that " It's all over the thread, with links and references" is a blatant lie. Why are you lying? As for your personal experience, it's a worthless anecdote.

No, but predominately funding for peer-reviewed science originates from those with a monetary interest in specific results of the findings.

Another thing that you pulled out of your backside. Let's see you support that unevidenced assertion with, well, evidence.

The evidence is that I can pass vision tests where before I couldn't, as the direct result of using a specific method that is backed with science.

That's evidence for your assertion that "predominately funding for peer-reviewed science originates from those with a monetary interest in specific results of the findings"? You obviously have severe problems with reading comprehension. And of course, your specific method is no more backed by science than I am the King of Siam.

 

[SusanB-M1]

I'm catching up on this thread today. I wonder if Tippit would be interested in another fantastic claim made by a poster on another forum about a child with rectangular pupils. There is a condition known as Colobona which I had certainly never heard of. The poster's claims includes one about genetic modification by ETs, so I suppose that is too much off-topic here, but just thought I'd mention it.

Needless to say, I am challenging the claim at every turn!

 

[Andy_Ross]

Someone watched too much TV obviously

 

[Tippit]

Whoa, accusing me of lying? Claiming that my personal experience is worthless? It seems like you’re getting upset, and more than a little contemptuous.

Perhaps you are exactly the type of person Herbert Spencer was talking about, in which case, sadly, I think we have both wasted our time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hecd2]

Whoa, accusing me of lying?

Yes.

Claiming that my personal experience is worthless?

Yes, so far as establishing whether a particular process is efficacious.

I think we have both wasted our time.

It's never a waste of my time to call out anti-scientific woo.

 

[Pixel42]

Everyone's personal experience is useless when it comes to establishing whether the signals we think we see in the noise are really there. That's why the scientific method had to be invented.

 

[Tippit]

Everyone's personal experience is useless when it comes to establishing whether the signals we think we see in the noise are really there. That's why the scientific method had to be invented.

You should, without any doubt, speak for yourself.

 

[Tippit]

Yes.
Yes, so far as establishing whether a particular process is efficacious.
It's never a waste of my time to call out anti-scientific woo.

Do you have any evidence that I'm a liar? Do you have any evidence that anything I've said represents "woo"?

 

[hecd2]

Do you have any evidence that I'm a liar?

Yep. Post #204 of this thread explains your lying.

Do you have any evidence that anything I've said represents "woo"?

Yep, your entire thesis in this thread is pure woo unsupported by any published scientific evidence. It’s no different from homeopathy.

 

[Tippit]

Yep. Post #204 of this thread explains your lying.

I'm sorry, that isn't evidence. Did you have any evidence?

Yep, your entire thesis in this thread is pure woo unsupported by any published scientific evidence. It’s no different from homeopathy.

I'm sorry, you fail again. Your baseless opinion is not evidence. Do you have any evidence?

 

[hecd2]

I'm sorry, that isn't evidence. Did you have any evidence?

Ah, now you reveal one of your basic problems, your abject ignorance of what constitutes evidence, which is itself in evidence throughout this thread. Everyone can see you lied about what peer reviewed papers you presented in support of your claims. I’m sure that if they disagree with me they’ll rush to your defence.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sorry Tippit but this is typical woo as we use the term here on the forum.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove Forum Management Feedback content

It's always tough to hear 'everyone here's against your POV'. I get hit with that from time to time and I don't let it bother me when I believe I am correct. But at some point I do stop arguing with people.

 

[Tippit]

Ah, now you reveal one of your basic problems, your abject ignorance of what constitutes evidence, which is itself in evidence throughout this thread. Everyone can see you lied about what peer reviewed papers you presented in support of your claims. I’m sure that if they disagree with me they’ll rush to your defence.

Do you have any evidence of my abject ignorance of what constitutes evidence?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tippit]

Sorry Tippit but this is typical woo as we use the term here on the forum.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to match quoted post

It's always tough to hear 'everyone here's against your POV'. I get hit with that from time to time and I don't let it bother me when I believe I am correct. But at some point I do stop arguing with people.

Lol! The only thing that matters, is my remarkably improved eyesight. I guess it was a miracle! Hallelujah!

There is nothing “tough” about a dogpile of condescending, contemptuous pseudo skeptics on an internet forum, for whom there is no convincing. You might as well be the church, and I Galileo.

The best revenge, is living well, as they say.

I will update my continued progress, and then eventually provide the results of an exam from an ophthalmologist, plus records of my prior prescription once I reach 20/20 vision, which I estimate will be a matter of a few months.

For now, i have rapidly improving monocular diplopia, which is manifesting itself at farther and farther distances, and as this right eye gains more acuity, I realize I am also gaining back Stereopsis (the depth perception resulting from binocular vision), and its a great feeling! This is mostly the result of patching 15m per day. Congratulations! Why thank you!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Pixel42]

You should, without any doubt, speak for yourself.

Are you really unaware of why the scientific method had to be invented? Have you never heard of cognitive biases, e.g. confirmation bias?

Perfectly intelligent, rational people have managed to convince themselves that astrology, homeopathy , dowsing etc work, even though methodical testing which carefully eliminates the effect of those cognitive biases conclusively demonstrates they do not. That is why you cannot draw any firm conclusion based on anecdotal evidence alone. The most subjective experiences can do is tell you that there may be something going on that is worthy of further, scientifically rigorous, investigation.

I have no idea whether the cause/effect relationship you think you've discovered is really there. If you understood why the scientific method had to be invented you would realise that neither do you. It might be. It might not. Only a randomised, double blinded clinical trial could tell.

 

[dann]

Appeal to "the science which has yet to be done": See the Galileo gambit (RationalWiki).

 

[abaddon]

What Tippit describes is still typical of the onset of diabetes, commonly. And several even less pleasant diseases.

I hold to the suggestion that Tippit ought to go for a full medical. It would rule out any underlying causes, and it is a good thing to do anyway in terms of general health.

Of course, the doctors are all probably in on "it" whatever "it" is. Paid off by big optics or whatever.