 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / January 2006Regarding Aceman -- Explains a lot...
This goes some way to answer my genuine curiosity about the person behind all of Aceman's posts... http://www.shroomery.org/index.php/the/default/par/22826 > This goes some way to answer my genuine curiosity about the person behind > all of Aceman's posts... > > http://www.shroomery.org/index.php/the/default/par/22826 And ace website is called: http://psychedelia.conforums.com/index.cgi  SignatureJan (normally Dutch spoken) Somehow, I don't think SpaceAce's daddy would let him use something like that. dr grant Dom schreef in bericht: > This goes some way to answer my > genuine curiosity about the person > behind all of Aceman's posts... Thank you. That clears up just about everything. Next question: Otis's excuse would be?? Dear Neil, That would be establishing the "Neil Brooks" effect on "optometry", or why optometry must work in a legal "defensive" posture. In fact, these "majority-opinion" ODs do not have to mount any more pseud-scientific arguments at all. All they need to say is that there practice is limited to the "Neil Brooks" effect -- and I will understand their position -- PERFECTLY. Otis > Dear Neil, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Otis Otis is obsessed with Neil. Otis is obsessed with optometrists. Otis is obsessed with minus lenses, and Otis is obsessed with myopia. Otis is obsessed. DrG Dear DrG, Otis is concerned that a person be correctly informed of the proven behavior of the natural eye. Otis is concerned that you would get sued by Neil Brooks -- or any other psycho -- which explains why you will never discuss prevention with the public that walks in off the street. Otis would not do that either. Otis is concerned that the person have an "informed" choice in the matter -- and evaluate the vaious studies that indicate that prevention is possible -- if the individual himself takes that objective vary seriously -- as my nephew did. There are limits to what you are doing -- and Neil Brooks defines that limit. Others on sci.med.vision are free to draw their own conclusions about what they expect from you -- if you are limited in that matter -- as I think you are. This is not your fault -- it is the nature of your profession as further defined by Dr. Jacob Raphaelson -- in, "The Printer's Son". But a better solution would envision a much closer relationship between the person, as to what his goal was -- and how you could help him. But you do not what that -- as the "majority opinion". Fortunately, there are other second-opinion ODs like Steve Leung who will help the public with true-prevention -- as you will not. Think about it. Best, Otis > Otis is concerned that a person be correctly informed > of the proven behavior of the natural eye. otis is uninformed about the PROVEN behavior of human eyes. otis confuses the PROVEN behavior of HUMAN eyes with data on chickens and monkeys which are PROVEN to be different than HUMAN eyes. otis ignors this. > Otis is concerned that you would get sued by Neil > Brooks -- or any other psycho -- which explains > why you will never discuss prevention with the > public that walks in off the street. do not be concerned for us otis. we will not discuss prevention with the public because we know about the research on prevention methods. we know that there is no effective prevention scheme. therefore we will not discuss it with patients since we don't have anything to offer them. thanks for your concern though. > This is not your fault -- it is the nature of your profession > as further defined by Dr. Jacob Raphaelson -- in, > "The Printer's Son". this is one of your favorite talking points isn't it. what a romantic fellow you are. but the problem is not that we fear reprisals from our colleagues, the authorities, or the "system". we do not discuss prevention because there is nothing to say. > But a better solution would envision a much closer relationship > between the person, as to what his goal was -- and > how you could help him. of course we want to help patients. that is what we do. but to mislead them with false information is hurtful to people and helps noone. > Think about it. we've thought about it. you are wasting your breath. > Dear DrG, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > why you will never discuss prevention with the > public that walks in off the street. Right, and if an optometrist gets sued he has a lot to back him up. Chicken studies, primate studies, Young's study of near esophorics, What else Otis? Come on Otis, we need something solid to back us up. Or can we say "Your Honour, Otis Brown, and engineer and the world leader in myopic prevention said..........." If optometrist gets sued for prescribing the second opinion, they deserve it. Why? Because no such studies exists to convince us that the plus method works. > Fortunately, there are other second-opinion ODs like Steve Leung > who will help the public with true-prevention -- as you will not. Ok, so you mentioned one second opinion optometrist----any more? Roland Izaac > Think about it. > > Best, > > Otis > [ ... ] > Chicken studies, primate studies, Young's study of near esophorics, What else Otis? > Come on Otis, we need something solid to back us up. The way you guys line up to blast Otis is very interesting. Maybe you have a secret, gnawing suspicion that encouraging adolescent myopes (and others?) to focus close through their distance eyeglasses may not be in their best interest? > If optometrist gets sued for prescribing the second opinion, they deserve > it. Why? Because no such studies exists to convince us that the plus method > works. "Second opinion" and "plus method" are pretty meaningless and confusing expressions. In any discussion about the possible detrimental effects of myopia corrections, they are, I feel, inflammatory and obfuscatory. I do not think that anybody expects OD's to come up with the answer to progressive myopia, but, who knows, maybe somebody will. Doubtful though you'd hear about it here on s.m.v. while Otis and Ace are the only shows in town. > Roland If you are Roland, who is Philip D.? Is he your daddy? "Doubtful though you'd hear about it here on s.m.v. while Otis and Ace are the only shows in town. " Actually, no-shows I would think. Otis harps on about a subject with no support, other than one paper and a book written by someone who claims conspiracy theories. What in fact happens in the real (non-otis, non-ace world) is that most optoms want to stop the progression of myopia, but there is no proven way of doing it. I use plus lenses, RGP contacts, OK, vision therapy, which have at best been shown to slow the progression, at worst to do nothing. If I land in court, I have to be able to justify my actions with verifiable evidence for my actions. Otis' theories have holes so large that he could never win a case. However, like a dog with a bone, he holds on, regardless of the fact there is NO evidence to support his claims. Now comes the bit where Otis replies with his "proof" that the is correct.................. dr grant Dear Friend, Subject: Conspiracy Theories -- your concept. Grant> Otis harps on about a subject with no support, other than one paper and a book written by someone who claims conspiracy theories. Otis> I have made no such statement about "conspiracy". What I suggested is that your practice is limited by "bombs" like "Neil Brooks" and the public only will "accept" vision made sharp instantly by a minus lens. Otis> That is not a "conspiracy", but a practice "limited" to the fact that the public only understands instant results -- and nothing else. Best, Otis > Otis> That is not a "conspiracy", > but a practice "limited" to the > fact that the public only understands > instant results -- and nothing else. Hence the need for experts such as yourself, enlightening the masses with altruistic fervor... Whatta guy... -MT Dear Mike, No, again you got it wrong. I consider prevention-with-plus to be honestly difficult -- given the personal consistency and effort it takes. It depends almost completely on how the person preceives both the necessity of it -- and the fortitude to do it with success. There is no way in hell you could ever "prescribe" this, and if you had one idiot like Brooks -- you would be "canned". Thus there is no incentive for you to even be involved. And I do understand that issue. The purpose was NOT to help the general public (which is obviously impossible) but to help my own family members understand WHY YOU CAN BE OF NO HELP. In fact, I have edited what you have written here, and sent it to Keith -- so he knows exactly the reasons WHY he HAD TO KEEP PUSHING WITH THE PLUS, and monitoring his own eye chart. He certainly learned from the Oakley-Young study - the consequences of neglecting the "plus" and choose the "high road" on this issue. We can not help "humanity" as you suggest. We can only help our family members. You can not "push" a person to do this. You can only "push" a person in the correct direction only AFTER he has decided to go in that direction. As you said (and you are absolutly correct) you have no time for this type of work. Fair enough? Otis > The purpose was NOT to help the general public (which is > obviously impossible) but to help my own family members ............. > We can not help "humanity" as you suggest. We > can only help our family members.............. So why is it you post your crap here? Now you claim you do this solely for your family. Huh? Nobody believes you. You're left with no purpose other than to lie, and to attempt to crawl out of the legal hole you've dug yourself into. And deeper and deeper into it you fall. Pathetic. LB (filters back on now.) > The purpose was NOT to help the general public (which is > obviously impossible) but to help my own family members ............. > We can not help "humanity" as you suggest. We > can only help our family members.............. Larry> So why is it you post your crap here? Otis> So that the public who reads your "attitude" can underrstand YOU BETTER. Larry> Now you claim you do this solely for your family. Huh? Nobody believes you. Otis> I find a lot of reasons to NOT believe you when you insist that the fundamental eye is NOT DYNAMIC, and that the natural eye DOES NOT CHANGE when you place a minus lens on it. On a scientific level -- the proof is final. You do not like sientifif proof. You tell everyone they MUST ignore it. I suggest that they must ignore you. You're left with no purpose other than to lie, Otis> Further arrogance on your part. Now I know why the public gets no HONEST information about the second-opinion from you. Larry> Now you attempt to crawl out of the legal hole you've dug yourself into. And deeper and deeper into it you fall. Pathetic. Otis> WOW! I did not realize the full extent of your intellectual blindness. Thanks for posting this -- it EXPLAINS A LOT ABOUT YOU. LB (filters back on now.) Otis> Put you "shields" back up, not, go in your office, and continue to tell the public that the natural eye is not a competent system, and that the minus lens has no effect on the refractive state of the primate eye. Jeeze. > Larry> So why is it you post your crap here? > > Otis> So that the public who reads your "attitude" can > underrstand YOU BETTER. In other words, your purpose is to needle and provoke good doctors like Larry into responding to your posts in a predictable manner. But, of course we know this. > Larry> Now you claim you do this solely > for your family. Huh? Nobody believes you. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > You tell everyone they MUST ignore it. > I suggest that they must ignore you. Applying a minus lens to an eye with an equal, but opposite focal length does NOTHING, and this is where you get off on fibbing about the experimental data. We know you are stretching the truth, and YOU know that you are stretching the truth, but the uneducated reader does not. > You're left with no purpose > other than to lie, > > Otis> Further arrogance on your part. Now > I know why the public gets no HONEST information > about the second-opinion from you. ...nor do we give the public the second opinion on apricot pits for cancer. > Larry> Now you attempt to crawl out of the legal hole you've > dug yourself into. And deeper and deeper into it you fall. Pathetic. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > and that the minus lens has no effect on > the refractive state of the primate eye. Jeeze. Obviously we aren't as smart as you, Otis, which partially explains why it takes fully four years to teach optometrists that the eye is a simple box camera and how to cause staircase myopia with minus lenses. You're on to us, Otis. DrG > As you said (and you are absolutly correct) you > have no time for this type of work. > > Fair enough? "Fair" might mean you actually saw a message from me saying "have no time for this type of work." "Fair" might mean you actually know what I tell my patients. As it happens, I spend significant time with _every_ emerging myope (and/or their parents) discussing what they can do to slow the progression of myopia, according to current literature and accepted standards. I also warn them about internet nutjobs who will prey on their emotions to recommend unproven therapies. Care to guess where you come into the discussion? -MT > Dear Mike, > > There is no way in hell you could ever "prescribe" this, > and if you had one idiot like Brooks -- you would be > "canned". Thus there is no incentive for you > to even be involved. And I do understand that issue. Otis, did you read my previous post? You obviously decided not to answer it, how clever of you. As I said, there is no Optometry board in singapore to answer to (Even you Otis, Yes, even you can practice optometry in Singapore). And yes, There is a way in hell that I can "Prescribe" the second opinion without fear of reprisals. As you know, the number of myopes in Singapore are stagering. Parents are jumping up and down to find a way to prevent or stabalize their children's myopia. They will fall for anything I tell them, they are desperate enough. Should I feed off their desperation? They will be happy trying anything and I will be happy in my new Ferarri. > The purpose was NOT to help the general public (which is > obviously impossible) but to help my own family members > understand WHY YOU CAN BE OF NO HELP. You can help in Singapore Otis, Please come. Maybe then we will get our optometry board sooner then expected. > He certainly learned from the Oakley-Young study - the > consequences of neglecting the "plus" and choose > the "high road" on this issue. Did you diagnose him with near point esophoria? Roland Izaac To Otis Brown who will ignore this post. > Otis > No, again you got it wrong. I consider prevention-with-plus > to be honestly difficult -- given the personal consistency > and effort it takes. It depends almost completely > on how the person preceives both the necessity > of it -- and the fortitude to do it with success. Prevention of true myopia *your way* is not only honestly difficult, it is honestly nearly impossible. > There is no way in hell you could ever "prescribe" this, > and if you had one idiot like Brooks -- you would be > "canned". Thus there is no incentive for you > to even be involved. And I do understand that issue. Of course. Millions of hyperopes like Neil Brooks are lined up against true myopia prevention, secretly longing for myopia. > The purpose was NOT to help the general public (which is > obviously impossible) but to help my own family members > understand WHY YOU CAN BE OF NO HELP. Then why not keep your half-baked ideas between you and your family members, if they still talk to you? > In fact, I have edited what you have written here, and > sent it to Keith -- so he knows exactly the reasons > WHY he HAD TO KEEP PUSHING WITH THE PLUS, > and monitoring his own eye chart. Why? Is Keith having trouble with his motivation? > He certainly learned from the Oakley-Young study - the > consequences of neglecting the "plus" and choose > the "high road" on this issue. If he learned anything from you, it was the incorrect interpretation of the Oakley-Young study. Aren't you still embarrassed about it? > We can not help "humanity" as you suggest. We > can only help our family members. You can > not "push" a person to do this. You can > only "push" a person in the correct direction > only AFTER he has decided to go in that > direction. IF it worked, what would be the problem with the implementation? > As you said (and you are absolutly correct) you > have no time for this type of work. How much time is necessary? DrG > Dear Friend, First, I ain't your friend. You are a stupid moron of astronomical proportion. Your knowledge of myopia is astonishing in how little you understand of both the condition and the patient. > Otis> I have made no such statement > about "conspiracy". No, your idiotic mentor Don Rehm is the conspiracy theorist as previously stated. What I suggested > is that your practice is limited by > "bombs" like "Neil Brooks" and > the public only will "accept" > vision made sharp instantly > by a minus lens. My practice is limited by what I choose to do. I actually spend most of my day dealing with kids. A large proportion of them myopic. All of them being attempted to control or limit the progression. > Otis> That is not a "conspiracy", > but a practice "limited" to the > fact that the public only understands > instant results -- and nothing else. The public understands that idiots like you are dangerous. The public understands that I can only recommend treatments that are able to be supported. Nothing you say can be supported, therefore you are a dangerous fool at the very least. dr grant Dear Otis, I can practice Optometry any way I like as there is no Optometry board in Singapore to answer to. I can advertize "Specialist in Myopia Control" and have my apointments filled to the hilt. I can make more money putting myopic kids into bifocals and reading glasses. I can laugh all the way to the bank by putting every kid I can lay my hands on (myopics, hyperopics and emetropics). Whats to stop me? Not even the "Neil Brooks" effect on optometry (which in my opinion, is another one of your silly ideas). But, I know better then that --- and I have a concience. So please, please Otis, prove to us that your method works so that I can do all of the above and still have a clear conscience. Roland Izaac > Dear Neil, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Otis A question for the OD's: (and Ace) If you are myopic/presbiopic etc do you need to wear your glasses/lenses to see your mushroon-induced hallucinations clearly? > This goes some way to answer my genuine curiosity about the person behind > all of Aceman's posts... > > http://www.shroomery.org/index.php/the/default/par/22826 |
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.