 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / November 2005Fellow posters -- beware of the threat of Neil Brooks.
Warning to anyone posting on Sci.med.vision about the bizzare Neil Brooks. I am interested in the "safety" of the Internet and freedom of speech -- that you not be attacked by other posters. Here is an example of what Neil Brooks does to fellow posters: _______________________________ Post office warning: Warning to anyone posting on sci.med.vision about Neil Brooks. I express the general judgment that the natural eye is dynamic (on a scientific level). You can disagree with the perception of the natural eye's proven behavior if you wish. But Neil sends anonymous letters to my wife -- for Christ's sake. He also contacted my nephew, Keith -- another bizarre action. I think he is a threat to any OD who espouses the second opinion concerning the prevention of a negative refractive state for the natural eye. Here is the letter he sent my wife. The next step it to notify the post office, to protect YOU. ______________________ September 30, 2005 Dear Mrs. Brown Enclosed is one ($1.00) US Dollar. Please use your best efforts to keep Otis off the computer for a while. His constant posts on the newsgroup sci.med.vision are making him look extremely moronic. You don't want that, do you? Neither do we. For all our sakes, then, please pull the plug on his little Internet dalliances for a while. He must have other hobbies, right? Can't we nurture those for a few months? Thanks much. The Management ___________________ (Neil Brooks did inclose $1.00. My wife was terrified by the anonymous letter. If Neil had signed it -- that would have been better. It is very clear (now) that the only person crazy enough to send this letter was Neil. I consider him a threat to your safety. The ODs are professional -- and as I said I respect them. We have a technical argument about the natural eye's dynamic behavior -- and ONLY that type of scientific argument. You will find that the judgment I maintain -- is shared and agreed to as the "second opinion". Read: www.chinamyopia.org If you doubt this. But Neil is bizarre in the extreme. Otis LOL!!! What a *GREAT* letter!! OSB- All anybody has to do is a quick Google search to see that you post your drivel on numerous forums. The potential universe of people who think you're a nut job is nearly unlimited. I'd love to take credit for that particular missive, Dear Boy, but I didn't pen it. Neither would I spend a dollar on you. Seek help. Really.  SignatureLive simply so that others may simply live Neil, Then I take it you deny you wrote the letter. It is obvious that you did. Let me ask another question, Neil. Did you contact my nephew Keith B." Do you deny that you did? Have the guts to tell the truth for once. Yes or no? Otis > Neil, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Otis Take it elsewhere, Otis. Nobody is buying your story. What is your contribution here, other than antagonizing people? You seek to dominate every discussion and turn it towards your bogus idea of prevention using plus lenses. DrG DrG, This issue is about Neil Brooks sending my wife anynomous letters -- an others who might wish to make second-opinion statements about the PREVENTION of a negative refractive state for their own children. Further, it is about Neil Brooks sending emails to my nephew -- which is none of his business. I am waiting for Neil to deny that he sent the letters and emails. You are not involved in these discusions. Otis > You are not involved in these > discusions. You are in a PUBLIC forum Otis. Anybody can jump in a thread. Don't like it? Take it to private email. Allen > I am waiting for Neil to deny that he sent the letters and emails. >You are not involved in these discusions. A public forum is a place where _anyone_ can participate in discussions, Otis. Continuing to accost the group as you do, and then complaining about someone else entering the discussion, is absolute hypocrisy. Makes your credibility sink lower than it already was. If you want a discussion to be kept private, keep it off the newsgroup. What are you, new? Jackass. You know, I _really_ enjoy following these exchanges. It's entertaining watching someone continue to embarass themselves and just keep coming back for more. Kind of reminds me of my brother talking about 'ferret bowling' - he used to have a pet ferret - he'd fling it down the hall like a bowling ball (I guess 'curling rock' would be more apt), and watch it go *whap* into the wall at the end, only to run right back, waiting for more. Watching Otis' antics, I can only conclude that he thrives on ridicule. Or, more likely, has absolutely no real-world social interaction, and has to resort to trolling to feel like he's got any contact in the world at all. Typical troll motivatations. Hey, Otis - *whap*!!. ;)) > You are not involved in these > discusions. Then, like your other diatribes, this one belongs somewhere besides sci.med.vision. -MT >> You are not involved in these >> discusions. > > Then, like your other diatribes, this one belongs somewhere besides > sci.med.vision. Otis' comments are getting ad hominem. The issue concerning to whom Neil Brooks sent mail is not a scientific issue. One's motives for making an assertion are irrelevant as to whether or not it is true. SignatureRobert Kopp http://analytic.tripod.com Where's the proof Cletis?? grant this letter does not sound threatening in the least. actually i think its great! i wish i had sent it. go ahead and contact the post office. you will be a laughing stock there as much as you are here. if your wife was "terrified" as you say then she must be a loony as you. if my wife received such a letter she would show it to me and suggest that i "reconsider" what i've been doing. then she would probably tell our friends and have a joke at my expense. maybe that's what your wife is really doing! take the hint otis-- disappear. I am still expecting Neil to acknowledg the fact that he sent the letter. He can be an honest psycho, or a dishonest psycho. If he owns up to the letter -- I certainly will drop the subject. Otis >I am still expecting Neil to acknowledg >the fact that he sent the letter. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >If he owns up to the letter -- I certainly >will drop the subject. Sorry, but it wasn't me. Continue to blather away. You are providing low-cost entertainment for quite a few people ... you nut-job. SignatureLive simply so that others may simply live Message for Otis, his wife and nephew: BOO! Dear Neil, Then tell me Neil Brooks, Did you contact my nephew and bad-mouth the plus lens preventive method? You are obviously a false person and cover one lie -- with another. OTis Dear fellow poster, The second-opinion is that a negative refractive state for the eye can be prevented. Here is a world-class SCIENTISTS who cleared his vision with the plus -- and BEGGED the NIH to help with prevention. Let me also remind you the we are talking about prevention only -- as suggested by the prevention minded OD, Steve Leung www.chinamyopia.org Think about it. ________________ Here is Dr. Colgate letter. (The following letter is taken from one of the United State's scientist Dr. Stirling Colgate who concerns the visual welfare of young children.) Letter to the National Institute of Health Dr. Elena Nightingale Director, Preventive Medicine National Institute of Medicine 2101 Constitution Avenue Washington, DC 20418 Dear Dr. Nightingale, The enclosed two reports are a statement concerning the prevention of myopia-the one within the profession by Francis Young ( "The Development and Control of Myopia in Human and Subhuman Primates", Contacto 19, p.16) and the other a discussion at an elementary level by myself, a physicist. The point is that myopia can be prevented in essentially all cases by appropriate management of the focal environment. It requires measuring each year the mean relaxed-state focal length of the eye during child development. When this refractive error is zero, one then uses any of the proven methods of preventing or inhibiting the progression of myopia. If the child does not progress beyond refractive error of zero, the child retains a refractive error of zero. This is called 20/20, 6/6 or 1.0 vision. The simplest, easiest and least drastic means of inhibiting further progression of myopia is the use of positive lens glasses, +1.50 to +2.00 diopters for all reading and protracted close work. The eye progressively adapts to its mean focal environment starting from the focal properties of all new born babies, +4.00 to +6.00 diopters, to progressively more near-sighted each year, usually -1/2 to -1 diopters per year. Then at the age of 6 to 10 years the mean relaxed state focus, refractive error, passes through zero. The normal environment of distance and no reading means that when the refractive error becomes zero, the time average contraction of the ciliary muscles becomes small and further adaptation to the focal environment ceases. This way the normal development leads to and maintain zero refractive error. The un-natural environment of reading causes myopia by extending the progressive adaptation to the un-natural near point focal environment of the book. The logical and least disruptive action is to change the effective focal properties of the book to infinity. Elementary optics indicates the uses of a positive lens to accomplish this. Conventional ophthalmology has traditionally treated the symptom, not the cause. We wait until the individual has adapted to the near-point focal environment. This adaptation is called myopia. We then fit the person with a negative/concave lens, which endows the distant object with the focal properties of a close-by one. If the individual then uses the negative/concave lens glasses for reading, a further adaptation to a still closer point focus is made and the grotesque result is called progressive myopia. The optometry profession has traditionally defended itself on the basis that all focal properties of the eye are pre-determined genetically. One can equally well explain the observed very large genetic correlation function and myopia with a variable genetic endowment affecting the focal adaptation mechanism. Dr. Francis Young has, in my opinion, demonstrated conclusive scientific evidence for the existence and for the mechanism of this adaptive mechanism-namely the small, progressive and irreversible lengthening of he eyeball in response to the fluid pressure increase caused by a contraction of the ciliary muscle. The alleviation of myopia is a worthwhile goal. At the very least, an open choice and recognized knowledge of the causes and prevention would seem to me to be outstanding objective in preventive medicine. Stirling A. Colgate, Ph.D. Theoretical Physics Division MS-210, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545 VITA at 21 September 1989 Degrees: B.A.(Physics), Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 1948 PH.D. (Physics), Cornell university, Ithaca, NY 1952 　 Dr. Stirling A. Colgate's PROFESSIONAL CAREER 1951 Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, Berkeley, CA (electron physics and accelerator physics) 1952~1964. Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, CA( nuclear weapons diagnostics, controlled fusion ,lasers)1956-64 Group Leader, controlled fusion project.1959 Technical Advisor to the U.S. State Dept. Conference on the Discontinuance of Nuclear Weapons Tests,Geneva,Switz.1960-64 Lecturer, Univ. of Calif. Berkeley, Elet. Engr. Dept. (plasma physics). 1965~1974 President of New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Socorro, NM. Director of Research .Professor of Physics- 1965-1974 Adjunct Professor( Physics and Astrophysics) NMIMT. 1974 Los Alamos National Laboratory, Theoretical Division. 1974 Los Alamos National Laboratory, Group Leader, Theoretical Webmaster's note: Dr. Stirling Colgate is an international well-known physicist. Other than send him a courtesy reply, nothing was ever done about his request by the NIM. Perhaps, it is the responsibility of every parent instead of the nation. --- In i-see@yahoogroups.com, Magnus <yomagnus@g...> wrote: > > The answer is YES. That was Fred Deakins who > > cleared his vision from 20/80 to 20/20 > > and pass the military test for > > vision at 20/15. > > Otis, > Dr. Stirling Colgate is an international well-known physicist. Other > than send him a courtesy reply, nothing was ever done about his > request by the NIM. Perhaps, it is the responsibility of every parent > instead of the nation. It's Dr. Colgate's responsibility to demonstrate the efficacy of his therapy, with real patients and real-life trials. Any word on when that might happen? -MT Dear Mike, It is clear that you can effectively block any true-preventive effort with a strong plus at the threshold. But, for an educated person who realizes that you can be of no help to them, that makes it their responsibility to understand these issues, and clear their vision UNDER THEIR CONTROL. This makes the issue more a scientific issue of exact preception of the proven behavior of the eye -- rather than a medical issue in any sense of the word. That is why Fred Deakins was successful. He was smart enough to figure this situation out -- and do it himself. It does take great personal resolve to do it -- and I agree that you can NEVER prescribe "prevention" as described by Dr. Colgage and Fred Deakins. But this still makes true-prevention the second opinion -- and your belief is the majority opinion. Best, Otis > But this still makes true-prevention > the second opinion -- and your > belief is the majority opinion. As you constantly remind us. When you get around to testing your hypothesis on adolescent humans, please get back to us. -MT If an environment of close-up work makes for nearsighted eyes, it is quite amazing that none of the studies intended to demonstrate reduction of nearsightedness by fooling eyes into thinking the work is far away, have panned out, or achieved credibility. It is amazing to the point of flabbergasting that discussions here on that subject resolve to the question "is Otis nuts, or what?". Is the conspirational view, which holds that minus lenses are good for you, behind this continual side-tracking? One only asks. One intends no disrespect. -- Dicky >If an environment of close-up work makes for nearsighted >eyes, it is quite amazing that none of the studies intended [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >One only asks. One intends no disrespect. Tough for one to take your question too seriously, Dick. This question has been beaten to death here for years. More work needs to be done to completely understand the mechanism(s) behind myopiagenesis. Much work IS ongoing. Go check out Adrian Glasser Meanwhile, there is overwhelming evidence that says that plus lenses, or bifocals, don't work as Odd Bird contends, except in kids with vergence disorders, and even then, only marginally. The self-evident reason that the discussions degrade is that the gentleman to whom you refer operates on faith, not science. As the chief astronomer from the Vatican recently said: he is a firm believer in Intelligent Design, but ... it ISN'T science. It can and should be taught in theology/religion/metaphysics classes, but NOT in science class. Same in this case. Theories that have been universally dismissed as invalid should either be re-tested by their proponents, or abandoned, but not put forth as valid in SCI.med.vision. Our little chatterbox can do neither of the two options above, choosing instead to rail at the top of his bronchiectasic lungs that the earth is flat.... I refer you, again, to the "Net Loon Index:" http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove/net-loon_index.html I welcome further conversational degradation. SignatureLive simply so that others may simply live > Tough for one to take your question too seriously, Dick. It was rhetorical. > More work needs to be done to completely understand the > mechanism(s) behind myopiagenesis. Just to understand the words -- like myopiagenisis. I'd like to know what it is, in the structure of the eye, that gets bent out of shape when we, as kids for the most part, push our eye-focusing mechanisms too hard. And, what makes us do that. > Much work IS ongoing. Yeah, yeah. And more money is needed for research. I know that game. > Go check out Adrian Glasser. OK, but there will always be one more guru that I did not check out yet. How about the Chinese? There are billions of them, all get nearsighted by leaps and bounds, and with plenty of gurus and healers, and even scientists to study their eyes and habits. Even with their own web site about eyes. But OK, let's check out Adrian Glasser. We could see what he is up to, and write a brief synopis to be posted here. > Meanwhile, there is overwhelming evidence that says that plus lenses, > or bifocals, don't work ... The plus lenses, as I have pointed out, are good from zapping ants on the sidewalk. The bifocals are hard for kids to manage, but they will usually work once you find out how to hold them (except when you steal them from real nearsighted old people). > The self-evident reason that the discussions degrade is that the > gentleman to whom you refer operates on faith, not science. We could killfile him, or ignore him. Or maybe we could decode his messages with our Little Orphan Annie Secret Decoder Badges. > Theories that have been universally dismissed as invalid should > either be re-tested by their proponents, or abandoned, but not put > forth as valid in SCI.med.vision. It amounts to this: Anything that Otis has interpretably addressed has turned to sh.t and must be cleansed. That is tough to do, because almost no one has figured out what he is trying to talk about. > I refer you, again, to the "Net Loon Index:" > > http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove/net-loon_index.html > > I welcome further conversational degradation. I do wish that you would try to be more supportive. -- Dicky >I do wish that you would try to be more supportive. The reason the support is lacking is very simple: over the time I've been browsing this group, Otis has forwarded his position as a recommendation to all readers. His evidence is a) very limited (one or two studies), b) very dubious (he insists on extending evidence gathered on primates to human application), and c) never changes. He always cites the same studies, as if they were a security blanket, in spite of the numerous requests for more empirical support. Also, he has conceded that his position is not medical, which begs the question of why he's in a 'med' newsgroup in the first place. And finally, he insists on using the same rhetoric time after time after time ("the dynamic behavior of the natural eye") etc. In short, he shows NO sign of being a reasonable, intelligent person with sincere goals on improving the base of knowledge in this area. He has a specific agenda, and does not discuss his position reasonably. This serves to antagonize people who genuinely want to provide working solutions for people's problems. At this point, it's gone on long enough that his credibility is shattered. His continued insistence on spouting the same diatribe has reduced his value in this group to that of the in-bred banjo player in the corner: perverse entertainment, and nothing more. Sad, really. BD Dear Dicky, Dispite the bone-headed remarks of some MAJORITY-OPINION ODs on this site -- they are not ALL of that opinion. In fact they support PREVENTION with the plus. To confim this, read: www.chinamyopia.org The REAL second-opinion, is the judgment of a man who pays attention to the objective, scientific fact concerning the behavior of the fundamental eye as a dynamic system. IThis is PURE SCIENCE and NOT MEDICINE.) >From all that I have said, I do agree that prevention must rest on the judgment of a person who sees his eye chart at 20/50 to 20/60. (After elliminating all MEDICAL cause), he must consider if he wishes to take PERSONAL responsibility to clear his vision. That is a tall-order for the person. Some have done it -- like Stirling Colgate, and others -- but it takes strong resultve IN THE PERSON HIMSELF. These ODs make the mistake in ASSUMING that THEY are responsible -- and the only "smart" people in this world. They then refuse to pay attention the objective scientific fact, and then tell us that we must also ignore all science -- that they do not "like". Honestly, some of the problem is "us" and our "bad habits". We also expect too much of the ODs. We want incredibly sharp vision (over-prescription), and we want "prevention". Guess what? You can not have both -- and you must make up your mind before you begin wearing that over-prescribed minus all the time. But there is an even stronger argument these majority-opinion ODs can make (and that I accept). They must conduct "legal defense". Thus if they do ANYTHING that is different than the traditional minus-lens of the last 400 years -- THEY WILL GET SUED BY: 1. The person who understands none of this. 2. The OD Board, who wishes to continue with the traditional minus lens. 3. Probably by the state-board of optometry. 4. They get NO REWARD, in money or "professional stature" if they make ANY MOTION in this direction. And I agree 100 percent with the above. But what then are the implications? That basically, you are going to have to make up your mind if your distant vision is "worth anything" to you -- and realize that the above items allow you no choice but to personally evaluate the second-opinion (for your child) and decide what you wish to do about it. Just to make this point even stronger I will post remarks describing "The Printer's Son" which suggests that even the most dedicated "preventive" OD can do nothing to prevent, and we must figure out what WE WANT. Sitting on our a.s and complaining does not work. Some things in your life you must decide for yourself -- after a "balanced" review of the objective, scientific facts themselves. Best, Otis > Dispite the bone-headed remarks of > some MAJORITY-OPINION ODs > on this site -- they are not > ALL of that opinion. When you convince the FDA and the FTC that your therapy works, we will all recommend it. Wouldn't it be more constructive to direct your efforts there? -MT Dick, because of parrot-like comments like yours and Otis' continual attempts to lead all such discussion back to some outdated and overly simplistic view of near vs. far, plus vs. minus that we never get any further in this NG. We have attempted to do so in the past, but some of the participants cannot or will not get beyond the limitations of their own knowledge and understanding. Would this description fit you, by any chance? I mean no disrespect. DrG "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wants to know, from me: > ... some of the participants cannot or will not get beyond the limitations of > their own knowledge and understanding. Would this description fit you, > by any chance? No! > I mean no disrespect. I do not find you disrespectful. You are just not very observant. -- Dicky Dear Dicky, Subject: Using basic clear words to describe what you measure, i.e., refractive state for the naturel eye -- which can be positive or negative. (These are truly, intellectual, scientific arguments -- if you get my "drift".) If an environment of close-up work makes for nearsighted eyes, Otis> What is proven is that the natural eye (as a dynamic system) will 1. Move in a negative direction when you place it in a more "negative" environment. and 2. Will move in a negative direction when you place a -3 diopter lens on it. This is the expeted performance of a control system, stated on an "input" verus "output" form of scientific testing. You can run these repeatable experiments if you doub the above, It is in the interests of these "majority opinion" ODs that they CONVINCE YOU that the above scientific truth -- is not scientific truth. That evalulation must be yours. Dick> it is quite amazing that none of the studies intended to demonstrate reduction of nearsightedness by fooling eyes into thinking the work is far away, have panned out, or achieved credibility. Otis> This DEPENDS on who you talk to. The Oakley-Young study shows the potential for true-prevention (before the minus lens is applied.) But again, the "majority opinion" ODs will attemp to convince you to ignore this highly credible study. Otis> The word "credility" has significance. With whom? Scienctists like Stirling Colgate and Steve Leung? Or the majority-opinion you hear on sci.med.vision. (I WOULD emphansize the SCIENCE in sci.med.vsion.) Dick> It is amazing to the point of flabbergasting that discussions here on that subject resolve to the question "is Otis nuts, or what?". Otis> That is how they work. They attack the poster who suggests the preventive alternative. But that is why we are having the scientific discussion about the proven behavior of the natural primate eye. Dick> Is the conspirational view, which holds that minus lenses are good for you, behind this continual side-tracking? Otis> No, I think it is different than that. The real issue is practicing "defensive" optometry -- as I described it. Otis> With all honesty -- I think I would do the same thing that they are doing -- if I were under pressure to "perscribe" a quick fix -- that is the only thing the general public will "allow" at this point. Otis> But that reflects on us, and our lack of motivation for true-prevention. Otis> It think this issue needs to be spelled out to us -- and they judge that they have no obligation to do so. Otis> But that attitude solves no scientific problems. Best, Otis One only asks. One intends no disrespect. >Otis> The word "credility" has significance. With whom? Certainly not with me. I can't even find it in the dictionary. YMMV. SignatureLive simply so that others may simply live Dear Dicky, Subject: Pay attention to the Oakley-Young study and the primate data concerning the natural eye's proven behavior. Re: Pay attention to the LEGAL reasons why an OD can never help anyone with true prevention -- and why the person must basically "do it himself" -- on a scientific, not medical level. Neil Brooks contacted my nephew, and proceeded to "bad mouth" me, and Keith's use of the plus for true-prevention. (I guess Neil will deny this also -- probably a senior moment on Neil's part.) Keith has great resolve on this issue -- no doub about it. He did not as anyone to do this for him. He decided his distant vision was "worth it" and worked the issue himself -- since he knew that the OD could not help him. (legal reasons -- again.) Here is his discussion -- for your interest. This is why plus-prevention is, or will become the "second opinion". I am certain we will get the usual "nasty" comments from the "majority opinion" group. Dear second-opinion friends, Subject: Keith's vision from a 13 years old to age 40. Now 20/15! From detailed discussions with Dr. J. Raphaelson it became clear to me that the person himself would have to make AGRESSIVE use of the plus BEFORE he began to wear the minus lens -- or suffer serious consequences. I knew from the bi-focals (plus) studies that when the single-minus is placed on the natural eye -- its refractive status moves steadily downward at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year -- average. Strong use of the plus STOPPED this movement. For this reason I advocated the strong use of the plus by the person who wishes to keep his vision at a level that ALWAYS passes all legal visual requirements -- by his own checking. Keith started this process when he was 13 years old. He would periodically notice that his distant vision was getting "blurry" in college. Taking responsibility himself, he simply "re-started" the intensive use of the plus until he exceeded the legal requirement for driving a care, i.e., reading 1.8 cm letters at 6 meters. Keith understood the "trade-off", involved. Use the plus before you fail the DMV, and you will never REQUIRE a minus lens. While on vacation with Keith recently, I noticed he still used the plus to read the newspaper and other work of this nature. I had no idea what his eye-chart was -- and mostly Keith did not check. Here is his statement of his current eye-chart check. ______________________ Dear Keith, As you know, I take PERSONAL responsibility for the "dumb" things I did with my eyes as a young child. Like that "bad habit", of leaning forward and reading at 4 inches (-10 diopters) for long periods of time. The ODs and MDs love to tell us there is no relationship between refractive state -- and environment. They are totally, and scientifically wrong on this issue -- and very biased about it. However the general public will NOT ACCEPT advocacy for prevention, and so the medical-myth must grind on -- and grind-up a massive proportion of young children's eyes. It is tragic that these ODs will not VOLUNTEER information about the natural eye's behavior as a matter of professional course and responsibility. I have long ago given up attempting to deal with that issue. It is only important that you have done this work correctly, and therefore successfully. Problems like this are "solved" at the family level -- not by large institutions. I tell you this so you may protect your own children. It is difficult for a parent to "enforce" something like this on their own children -- but I think they will "get the idea" in time. Eventually the child himself must get the idea if he is to retain clear distant vision through college. . Otis _____________________________________ Dear Uncle, I've been a bit more diligent in the last couple of months using the plus and I've noticed an improvement in my distance vision. The point of telling you something you already know? Haley went for her 4-year-old check up at the MD and they checked her hearing and vision so I checked my vision too, on a 10 foot chart. Low and behold, my left eye was able to read the 20/15 line and my right eye, although not necessarily clear, was able to read the 20/20 line! Both together made the 20/15 line of course. As you know I don't check regularly so it was surprising that I'm back to that good. A nice surprise. Keith >Keith has great resolve on this issue -- no doub about >it. He did not as anyone to do this for him. He >decided his distant vision was "worth it" and >worked the issue himself -- since >he knew that the OD could not help him. >(legal reasons -- again.) "Otis's posts tend to fall into the category of anecdotal (or made up): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence " Of this, there is no doub. SignatureLive simply so that others may simply live I am more and more persuaded that "Otis" is a tool fabricated by the evil-doers who wish to make us progressively nearsighted with progressively negative lenses, lining their evil pockets in the process. Yes, "Otis" is the ultimate argument to absurdity, not to mention ad hominum. Certainly if "Otis" mentioned it, or seemed to, in his garbled lexicon, it has got to be crazy. "Otis" frequently mentions "The Plus". You know what that is. It's the "+". That one is frequently used by you doctor folks in transcribing optical prescriptions. Is it not clear to you that the "+" is another Otisism??? "Otis" prevades everything. It is time to junk the system. The kids in grade school, studying arithmetic, should know about this. Their sums and differences are all suspect. And it does not end there ... -- Dicky > Dear Dicky, > [quoted text clipped - 115 lines] > > Keith Indeed, need I say more? Happy Thanksgiving, Otis. DrG Dear Mike, As Judy and Retinula pointed out -- they are legally constrained from even discussion true-prevention with the plus -- for fear of the OD Boards. You specificy the "real world". For you that means EXCLUSIVELY only your office. That is not science. That is your own opinion. Science provens that the natural eye "adapts" its refractive state to its visual enviroment -- as a natural process. Since you can't legally help with prevention -- the person must teach himself how to do it under his own control -- as Dr. Stirling Colgate did. That is the scientific world -- not the medial world. There is a profound difference in preception and understanding about the naturel eye's proven behavior, and how you use this knowledge to your best personal advantage. Best, Otis > Dr. Stirling Colgate is an international well-known physicist. Other > than send him a courtesy reply, nothing was ever done about his > request by the NIM. Perhaps, it is the responsibility of every parent > instead of the nation. It's Dr. Colgate's responsibility to demonstrate the efficacy of his therapy, with real patients and real-life trials. Any word on when that might happen? -MT >That is not science. That is your own >opinion. He's got you there, Mike. Nobody knows more about NON-science (nonsense?) than Otis.... SignatureLive simply so that others may simply live > As Judy and Retinula pointed out -- they are legally > constrained from even discussion true-prevention > with the plus -- for fear of the OD Boards. So why haven't you shown them they're wrong? Convincing us won't do much good. Convince the FDA and the FTC and we'll all recommend your treatment. > You specificy the "real world". For > you that means EXCLUSIVELY only > your office. Not to mention twenty thousand more just like it. > That is not science. That is your own > opinion. My opinion doesn't matter much. It's all those authors who conducted scientific studies that disagree with you. You know, the ones you didn't read... > Since you can't legally help > with prevention -- the person must teach himself > how to do it under his own control -- as > Dr. Stirling Colgate did. When Dr. Colgate was 14, he learned to relax his accommodative spasm. I've found several more who could do that. I haven't seen any effective treatment for real myopia. > That is the scientific world -- not the medial world. So where has Dr. Colgate published his efficacy data? Tell me so we can point it out to the FDA. -MT
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.