 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / March 2006Neil Brooks Slander Campagin Against the Second-Opinion
Dear Second-Opinion friend, Subject: Neil Brooks mania against the second opinion. Prevention is indeed difficult as most of us understand it. Neil Brooks is attacking you right to an informed choice in this matter -- suggested and developed by optometrists. I would suggest reading: www.chinamyopia.org for the support you could obtain from a highly qualified optometrist. It is up to YOU to ask or request this service, and lean how to employ this preventive method under the guidance of such a highly qualified person. There are no "final answers" here -- but you should be informed of these issues in a coherent way. Since Neil I making rabit attacks on this fundamental right -- I will respond so you understand them. ++++++++++++++++++++++ Dear Reader, Otis Brown is in no way qualified to give medical advice. Otis> I NEVER SAID I WAS!!!! Otis> I suggested that you read the second opinion by Steve Leung OD, and evaluate your own interest in protecting your distant vision through the school year. SUGGESTING that you read about the second opinion, does not constitute medical advice. Only the need to be informed of the nature of this preventive method. You can take it -- or leave it. The choice is yours, not mine. Before you consider paying attention to anything that Otis Brown (otisbr...@pa.net) writes, I urge you to review all of his previous posts. Otis> Please do. You will find that they direct you to a highly qualified professional, Steve Leung OD who will help you -- as he helps his own children. The purpose of my site it to help you understand this method -- and save Steve time, before you begin using the PREVENTIVE method. Success favors the prepared mind. Otis's motives are purely financial. Otis> This is complete bull S___. I developed the book for pilots who were on the threshold. I have stopped selling the book and put it on the "net" FOR FREE. Read it, enjoy it, and REJECT prevention. That is fine with me. Neil> His book--derided by the medical community- Otis> False! Some ODs, perhaps yes. Prevention minded ODs, NO. This is, and will remain a "majority/second" opinion issue. Professor Paul Romano expressed his support for this preventive method. Neil> -is what he's trying to sell you, for either $17.00 or $24.95, depending on the website you find. Otis> I have not sold any book for almost a year -- now do I intend to. But Neil is no respector of ANY TRUTH NOW IS HE? Neil> The doctors who participate on this forum have your, or your child's, best interests in mind. Otis> The MAJORITY-OPINION ODs tell you what they wish to believe. That is their right. But that is not the complete story -- not by a long shot. I suggest you understand it that way. There is no doubt that majority-opinion ODs will put their own children in a strong minus -- and that is their right also. But, equally, the second opinion ODs like Steve Leung START their child in the plus before this situation gets totally out-of-hand. That is how you should judge this second-opinion. Not only is there no scientific data on humans to support his fantasy, Otis> Neil makes this stuff up. The Oakley Young study showed that a weak +1.5 dipter lens stopped negative movement. At the threshold, before a minus lens is applied, the plus, more completely used, could have the effect of clering vision from 20/50 to 20/40 or better.] Neil is fixated on this "majority opinion". Neil> but there IS plenty that proves him wrong. Otis> Depends on whether you talk to a majority opinion OD or a second-opinion OD. Keep an open mind. There is not a single MD or OD who has ever acknowledged agreeing with Otis Brown's theories. Otis> That is again complete bull s___. Stating a "univeral statement", i.e. ALL ODS BELIEVE, is wrong on the face of it. You can expect more of Neil's delusions to follow. If you can find a shred of evidence or scientifically accepted proof of the efficacy of using plus lens therapy to prevent the progression of myopia in humans Otis> N. B., I only suggest preveting the ENTRY into nearsighedness. Once you start wearing that minus -- all "bets" are off. There is then no "recovery". Read the Oakley Young study for confirmation of this fact. then, by all means, follow his advice, but do so only under the care of a licensed optometrist or ophthalmologist. Otis> Neil is correct here. Find a prevention minded OD like Steve Leung OD, and other behaviorial ODs, explain what you wish and what YOU are willing to do to support your children in this effort -- and do it. Just do not wait until it is too late. Success favors a prepared mind. "Scientifically accepted proof" results from experiments conducted within the "scientific method" explained here: Otis> I am getting tired writing a response -- there is direct scientific proof that the eye is a dynamic system, and a negative refractive state can be prevented at the threshold. But that is the second-opinion as previously discussed. And, Neil, do not get upset -- but yuu are a blow-hard. My great sympathy for anyone how must deal with you, OD, MD or others. You are a reaql "trip". Enjoy, Otis > Otis> I am getting tired writing a response -- there and I am tired of telling people to disregard you as you are not in the position to give medical advice. Allen Allen, Some people would like to hear about and understand a competent second opinion -- whether you want them to -- or not. Why not just shut and let the people reading this THINK FOR THEMSELVES. Why do you appoint youself "guardian". Do you think they are stupid or something. You are insulting them -- not me. And your remarks are attacking THEIR rignt to an honest, informed second-opinion -- WHICH they can turn down if they wish. You seem to want to deny them even that! Best, Otis > You seem to want to deny them even that! I want to deny them access to a person who is not in the position to give medical advice. I want them to make an informed decision that you are not in the medical profession and not in the position to give medical advice. Need I say more? Best, Allen > You seem to want to deny them even that! Dear Allen, Subject: Eye-Question -- and the second-opinion Allen> I want to deny them access to a person who is not in the position to give medical advice. Otis> HOW MANY TIMES MUST I SAY THIS! I DO NOT PROVIDE MEDICAL ADVICE!! I suggest that they develop their OWN understanding of the preventive second-opinion, and ASK AN OD TO SUPPORT THEM IN THIS PREVENTIVE SECOND OPINION. I provide some of the information -- the "rest" is up to them -- to find a prevention-minded OD to help them. Allen> I want them to make an informed decision that you are not in the medical profession and not in the position to give medical advice. Otis> GOOD! I have informed them that there is a second medical opinion, and they should take time to learn the basis of it. That does not consitiute MEDICAL PRACTICE -- although you seem incapable of understanding that concept. Otis> The purpose of these discussions is so a person like Eye_Question can receive a "balanced" evaluation for her child at with 20/40 vision -- so he will not be forced to wear an over-prescribed minus 16/7. That the reason for this second-opinion that you have a rabid desire to surpress. Otis> You are hurting her, and her "choice" and not me. Allen> Need I say more? Otis> You too much already -- attempting to "protect" people from an informed, competent second opinion. Otis > Otis> HOW MANY TIMES MUST I SAY THIS! I DO NOT > PROVIDE MEDICAL ADVICE!! I suggest that they [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > up to them -- to find a prevention-minded OD > to help them. You just provided medical advice to the "concerned parent" of a 2 year/old girl by suggesting that her problem is due to reading at 4 to 5 inches. I certainly hope that the parents aren't so desperate that they would take your advice over the specialists at Bascom Palmer. You don't seem to understand the considerable limits of your knowledge. DrG Dear DrG, Subejct: The second-opinion. In other words you think it is wonderful that these children put their nose on the page and read like this??? And you insist that enviroment had NO EFFECT on the refractive state of all natural eyes??? It is clear that one of the recommendations of a SECOND-OPINION OD like Steve Leung would be to be VERY CAREFUL with a child who is doing that. You feel that you, as a "majority opinion" OD can not provide that type of high-quality scientific advice?? Fine, but this woman should understand that when you do this to young primates, their refractive state moves in the direction of the applied "nearer" enviroment. That is pures science, and if you wish, not "medicine" as your majority opinion defines it. But that is the nature of a complete second-opinion, which is the basis of this thread and discussion. I do not know about you, but if I see a person about to shoot himself in the foot -- I will try to stop him. You, instead, will sit there and watch him do it. That is not "medical advice" that is your concept of "medicine" I guess. Suggesting that a person not shoot himself in the foot IS NOT MEDICAL ADVICE!!!! Best, Otis I think that you are sadly off the reservation. You have provided medical advice to the parents of a 2 year/old who, according to the doctors who examined her, has some kind of lenticular myopia, and not axial myopia. This kind of problem is not caused by reading at 4 inches, but by something else entirely. You know, to a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Why you insist on continually medling in medical affairs is way beyond me. Do everybody here a favor and go back to engineering. DrG > You know, to a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I would like to present the "third opinion", which is that people don't pay any attention to what Otis recommends. Most of us aren't trying to keep him from giving advice, we are just giving the "third opinion". Why does he have such a problem with that? What's wrong with giving people a choice? > Why you insist on continually medling in medical affairs is way beyond > me. Do everybody here a favor and go back to engineering. NO!!! Do you really want your radio to blow up and kill you when you turn it on? :-(  SignatureDan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA >although you seem incapable of understanding that concept. And what YOU, Dear Otis, seem TRAGICALLY incapable of understanding is that NO ONE here has a problem with choice, and NO ONE here has a problem with differing opinions. What people have a problem with is YOU, AND YOUR CONDUCT. Have you NEVER stopped to ask yourself why acrimony follows you wherever you go in this group? I mean JESUS! How many people do you have to have a conflict with before you stop and think that it might be you after all, and not them, that is the problem???? Give your head a shake! ;-)) If I were Dr. Leung, I would be ASHAMED. You are the worst possible advocate he could possibly have. THE PROBLEM IS NEITHER CHOICE NOR SECOND OPINIONS; THE PROBLEM IS YOUR CONDUCT. Plain and simple. BD > Allen, > > Some people would like to hear about and > understand a competent second opinion -- whether > you want them to -- or not. That might be true but it doesn't appear that you have any qualifications to make your's competent. > Why not just shut and let the people reading > this THINK FOR THEMSELVES. Because they might make the assumption that since you are giving medical advice that you have some qualifications to do so. They should be informed that you don't. You should inform them yourself. You should start out all your posts with "I am not a doctor. I am not in the medical profession. I have no qualifications to dispense medical advice. With that in mind I would like to tell you how to correct your vision..." Then people would have the proper context within which to make an informed decision. > Why do you appoint youself "guardian". Do > you think they are stupid or something. Smart people get hurt and swindled by quacks every day. The majority of posters giving advice here are qualified in the profession to practice. You're giving medical advice here and someone new might make the mistake in assuming you are qualified as well. You're not. You should tell people that. > And your remarks are attacking THEIR rignt > to an honest, informed second-opinion -- WHICH > they can turn down if they wish. "honest"? Omission can be just as dishonest as comission. > You seem to want to deny them even that! Book sales lagging? -Quick >Some people would like to hear about and >understand a competent second opinion -- whether >you want them to -- or not. no one wants to hear what you have to say. you have no science on your side and you have no competence on your side. go away you embarrassing old man before the authorities come and cart you away. Perhaps they should read the scientific report by Christine F. Wildsoet and Rachel O. L. Wong -- because you sure as hell do not. Further, you only speak for the majority-opinion ODs -- it is time for basic change. Otis I've read the Wildsoet and Wong works. I am prepared to discuss it. Are you? What about this paper? http://www.annals.edu.sg/pdf200401/V33N1p4.pdf DrG > I've read the Wildsoet and Wong works. I am prepared to discuss it. > Are you? What about this paper? > http://www.annals.edu.sg/pdf200401/V33N1p4.pdf As always, great post. Great article. If Messr. Brown would take his head out of his a$$ long enough to read -- never mind. He doesn't read fact. It disturbs his faith. The Scientific Method. What a quaint notion. If only your theory held up to it, Uncle Otie ... people would be implementing it quicker than you can say "box camera." Shame. Guess you, the dead guy, Raphaelson, and Steve Leung will have to continue your little circle jerk of optometric sophistry just a little while longer. Or ... just a thought here ... you could leave your house from time to time and try to convince a research center to assist you in a proper trial to test your (oft disproven) theory, using RCT as the article says. Don't be scared, Otis. The worst you could do is fail. That shouldn't concern a *true* scientist in the least. The truth is what you seek, right? Not merely validation of your (pathological) assumptions. Truth, right? Go out there. It's yours for the taking, Uncle Otie! Dear DrG, For the group: The title is how to "slow down" the rate of myopia progression as vision goes below -6 diopters. A friend has sent it to me earlier. I will get the commentary and post is. Fine, that is a praise worthy goal, to "slow down" going from -6 to -8 diopters in an over-prescribed minus. But you always miss the point. And that is to AVOID entering into a negative refractive state -- in the first place. In other words, simply keep your "chart" at 20/40 or better, keep your distant vision through the school years, as Dr. Colgate did, and enjoy your clear distant vision. That means taking the Oakley-Young study seriously and acting on the scientific facts as they concern the proven dynamic character of all fundamental eyes. A person who prevets "entry" in the first place, never develops stair-case myopia. The person who takes the responsibility to clear his vision (when necessary) never fails legal visual-acuity requirments, and never requires your services. But I always insisted that my nephew have is eyes checked for MEDICAL PROBLEMS. He had none. Best, Otis > Dear DrG, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > A friend has sent it to me earlier. I will get the commentary > and post is. There are a bunch of papers out there, just like that one > Fine, that is a praise worthy goal, to "slow down" going > from -6 to -8 diopters in an over-prescribed minus. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > keep your distant vision through the school years, > as Dr. Colgate did, and enjoy your clear distant vision. Now, how's that for a self-contradiction. If the readers of this NG cannot discern this glaring inconsistency, then they deserve to believe you. > That means taking the Oakley-Young study seriously > and acting on the scientific facts as they concern > the proven dynamic character of all fundamental eyes. I have taken the Oakley-Young study seriously. You have not. You have not understood its conclusions, and you refuse to talk about it. > A person who prevets "entry" in the first place, never > develops stair-case myopia. Are you suggesting putting plus lenses on babies? > The person who takes the responsibility to clear his > vision (when necessary) never fails legal visual-acuity > requirments, and never requires your services. Then publish the results in a scientific journal. If true, it would be BIG news. > But I always insisted that my nephew have is eyes > checked for MEDICAL PROBLEMS. Have you checked yourself? DrG "otisbrown@pa.net" <otisbrown@pa.net> wrote in news:1141152676.973295.61640 @u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com: > Perhaps they should read > the scientific report by > Christine F. Wildsoet and > Rachel O. L. Wong -- because > you sure as hell do not. Very interesting, but focussed editorial literature review. Wildsoet and Wong, Nature Medicine 5(1999):579-50, if anyone is interested in hunting this down (it is a courtesy to post the reference so people can understand what the hell you're talking about, BTW). They talk about an eventual optical treatment for myopia as a hope, not something to be undertaken on the off chance that it might work. They discuss none of the human studies, pro or con. All they do is say that in the chick, the machinery is there--a mechanism that recognizes whether blur is myopic or hyperopic, and a mechanism to slow eye growth for myopic blur and speed it up for hyperopic blur. SignatureScott Reverse name to reply i have met dr. wildsoet. please provide the reference to the paper you are talking about. i would be happy to discuss it with you. please post the reference so we can discuss something relevant and current. i wonder what information she provides that you think supports your theory. bring it on otisbrown engineer. ================= > Perhaps they should read > the scientific report by [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Otis > i have met dr. wildsoet. please provide the reference to > the paper you are talking about. i would be happy to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > bring it on otisbrown engineer. Please quit pointing out that Otis claims to be an engineer. I'm an engineer. Unlike claiming to be a doctor, anyone can claim to be an engineer. It just makes me cringe when you guys emphasize this. You also seem to associate some qualities/ qualifications to being an engineer. Otis has evidenced none of these. Scientific method - no Logic - no Communication skills - no Data analysis to back up anything - no Published works - no Technology patents - no Employment (evidencing someone else's valuation) - no no, no, no, ... I think engineers everywhere would thank you to just drop this -:) -Quick > Please quit pointing out that Otis claims to be > an engineer. I'm an engineer. Unlike claiming to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Employment (evidencing someone else's valuation) - no > no, no, no, ... Yep, Quick, Otis does a severe dis-justice to engineers or any occupation. I just wonder, just how much time he actually spends replying to this newsgroup. The length of his replies are mind boggling considering the nothing you get out of his posts. Allen Dear PClar, Subject: Paper information. I received the paper in PDF format. Information: Published in: 1999 Nature America Inc. http://medicine.nature.com (Under News and Views) Volume 5, Number 8, August 1999 Title: A Far-sighted View of Myopia Subtitle: Retinal neurons can differentiate between different types of defocus to mediate changes in ocular growt. Authors: Christine F. Wildsoet and Rachel O. L. Wong As always, enjoy our pleasant analytical discussion of the proven dynamic behavior of the naturel eye. Best, Otis please let me know what facts, or concepts, within the article support your theory that plus lenses affect myopia in humans. why haven't you responded to my request for your comments on the Goss paper, the Chung paper, and the Shotwell paper? these are data from HUMANS. why do you discredit them while you cling to data taken from developmental studies on baby chickens and monkeys? go post in alt.vision.veterinary > please let me know what facts, or concepts, within the article support > your theory that plus lenses affect myopia in humans. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > go post in alt.vision.veterinary I think it's time this group was re-named to alt.fan.goober-quack-otis-brown. Face it: the man controls this group, absolutely and completely. Challenge: PROVE ME WRONG. Ignore him for a month. You know I'm right. SignatureNicolaas > Challenge: PROVE ME WRONG. Ignore him for a month. You know I'm right. OK. You first. SignatureCheers, Bev ============================================================== Everyone crashes. Some get back on. Some don't. Some can't. >> Challenge: PROVE ME WRONG. Ignore him for a month. You know I'm right. > > OK. You first. With pleasure! Apart from the occasional jibe I have already been ignoring him for many, many times that. SignatureNicolaas i understand the problem. you are mostly correct. otis angers me and i overreact. unfortunately he can't be shamed or shouted off of this newsgroup. he is truly incredicle! unfortunately, if you totally ignor otis he will continue to post his misleading information and offer people wrong advise. this can be harmful to people. totally ignoring his would be to allow this behavior. i think simply posting a warning might suffice-- like neal is doing. > i understand the problem. you are mostly correct. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > i think simply posting a warning might suffice-- like > neal is doing. Yes. It is doubtful that Otis will respond to anyone asking for advice here unnoticed. A single disclaimer/ warning directly to the person (not to Otis) would be as effective as possible for that entire thread. Other than that, no direct engagement/exchanges with Otis should pretty much take care of the problem. -Quick > Yes. It is doubtful that Otis will respond to anyone > asking for advice here unnoticed. A single disclaimer/ > warning directly to the person (not to Otis) would be > as effective as possible for that entire thread. Other > than that, no direct engagement/exchanges with Otis > should pretty much take care of the problem. RM ... or MS ... or somebody was doing that for a while. I think that's the best approach, but ... we need full participation here. Anybody sees you-know-who post on a thread, just jump in with a copy-and-paste version of my warning. It's not such a big deal for me to put it out weekly, but ... doing it on a per-thread basis might be more than I can commit to. Deal?? We, the Wise, shall triumph over He, the Wizened. I have been to the mountaintop..... >Deal?? I'm game. But I REALLY wanted to spend the next couple of weeks calling him "ShortBus". Almost rhymes with his real name. Oh well. This approach sounds far more constructive. by the way, what does your good friend ted grosvenor say? you claim you know him but he told me personally he doesn't know who you are. can you please explain? go away sicko Dear PClar, No, I quoted Ted Grosvenor. I know Francis Young personally. Best, Otis >As always, enjoy our pleasant analytical discussion >of the proven dynamic behavior of the naturel eye. The short bus is waiting... I am not sure what aspect of Dr. Wildsoet's work (on chickens) that you find so supportive. Why not visit her website at UC Berkeley and see what she has to say about undercorrection and bifocal use in children. http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaNews/controllingMyopia.html We are happy that you seem to be looking at some recent research topics in myopia. Please describe the ones that support you theory that plus lenses or undercorrection helps humans from developing myopia. ================ > Perhaps they should read > the scientific report by [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Otis > You are insulting them -- not me. So why are you complaining? Can't they speak for themselves? -MT First opinion: Otis is a bloody moron. Second opinion: \Otis is still a bloody moron. Yes second opinion doctors are quite right. dr grant >Yes second opinion doctors are quite right. I know this is a tongue in cheek comment, but hey, guys, as I approach my first, 2nd opinion, I really would appreciate some input on the situation with my eyes as reported in the message I posted Sunday:: Lates(t) on Roys eyes post cataract surgery Am trying to decide between simply refracing the problem with the current limitations in 3D vision; or some form of lazer correction to remove the astigmatism and return the eye to the distance vision as was envisioned with the IOL. It was the tech's opinion who did all the testing yesterday that the eyedoc, whom I see Friday, would probably want to do PRK vice insulting the eye again surgically withg a flap , as would be the case with Lasik. Valid thinking??? Is there something better??? I want to make certain I am considering all options, alternatives Any help advice would be appreciated. TIA ROY >>Yes second opinion doctors are quite right. > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > TIA > ROY Frankly, Roy, I'm having trouble understanding your question. Perhaps a short synopsis of the history would help. Aside from the lack of background, read your own sentence! > It was the tech's opinion who did all the testing yesterday that the > eyedoc, whom I see Friday, would probably want to do PRK vice > insulting the eye again surgically withg a flap , as would be the case > with Lasik. SignatureScott >> Lates on Roys eyes post cataract surgery I did reference the above posted message (2/26/06 1104 A.M.), which in turn referenced two earlier threads involving the problem. Are you able to get the threads? If not, I will cut and paste >Frankly, Roy, I'm having trouble understanding your question. Perhaps a >short synopsis of the history would help. Essentially. I had an LRI incident to cataract surgery. Because of a surgical error, instead of getting better, the astigmatism got much worse. Is is mostly corrected out, but has left me with lousy 3-D vision, and a come and go perception that flat things, like a table top, are slanted to the left rear. Am getting second opinions. One recommendation, w/o exam, was no more surgery, refract it out. 1st, second opinion, is that in no case do another LRI, either PRK or LASIK. Testing complete. Will talk to eyedoc Friday a,m, early. Was looking for some thoughts, recommendations, as to PRK vs LASIK vs do nothing and refract. > Lates(t) on Roys eyes post cataract surgery > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Any help advice would be appreciated. > TIA This group is generally pretty helpful. However, there are some problems that most of us just have no experience with. It sounds like you are doing everything you should, with getting opinions from real doctors who have actually looked at your eyes and your situation. I wish you the very best, but any advice I gave would be bad advice. SignatureDan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA > Since Neil I making rabit attacks on this > fundamental right -- I will respond so > you understand them. Oh, Otis. I have *never* attacked a rabbit in my whole life. I happen to think they're cute ... but only in a platonic way ... not like your days in Maryland ... with the monkeys. > > Since Neil I making rabit attacks on this > > fundamental right -- I will respond so [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to think they're cute ... but only in a platonic way ... not like your > days in Maryland ... with the monkeys. Neil, you are clearly illiterate. Obviously Otis didn't mean rabbit, he meant Rabi: Ra€bi (r2bT) also Ra€bi€a (r-bT2) n. 1. Either the third or the fourth month of the year in the Moslem calendar. See note at calendar. [from my online dictionary, aren't you proud of me?] SignatureDan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA > Neil, you are clearly illiterate. Obviously Otis didn't mean rabbit, he > meant Rabi: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > [from my online dictionary, aren't you proud of me?] *Either* the third or fouth month? I'm not only diplopic (again), but I'm now attacking time? Einstein would roll over in his grave. Alternatively, perhaps I attacked a *rabbi*, though--having been raised Jewish--I don't see myself doing that ... at least not without /extreme/ provocation. "Neil Brooks" <neil0502@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1141152183.759437.276860 @j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > *Either* the third or fouth month? I'm not only diplopic (again), but > I'm now attacking time? Einstein would roll over in his grave. Lunar calendars have a leap month SignatureScott Reverse name to reply > Since Neil I making rabit attacks on this > fundamental right Gromit! Start the Bun-Vac! -MT Dear Mike and Neil, Subject: The "impersonal" email messages. Correstion: The word was rabid, not rabbit. Second-opinion: The problem is not so much the ODs -- as I have suggested, it is rather the "resistance" of most people to the "preventive" method. And that is indeed a separate (and scientific subject) as I have been suggesting. In fact, I exonorate these ODs (except for their hubris). The can and should state that the "public" will reject out-of-hand and suggestion for the use of the plus for prevention. But some day in the future, second-opinion ODs like Seve Leung OD will offer it to you -- before that first minus is used on you. It will be up to you to decide -- not me, not, Neil, only you. I hope you choose wisely -- because it is vision clearing at the threshold -- or lose your distant vision permanently. (As established by the Oaky-Young study. Even Eye_Question recognized the AOA recommendation to be VERY CAREFUL with a long-term "near" enviroment. The AOA recommends "looking up" 10 percent of ths time -- very wise of the OAO. The effect of using a "plus" (when eye chart is at 20/50) is that you are looking "up" 100 percent of the time. The "math" is very good for this, and the C. Wildset and Wong article (1999) "A far-sighted vies of myopia",suggests much the same second-opinion approach. So even "pure" scientists suggest the being "careful" with that "near" environment is wise. Keep an open mind on this prevetive subject. Best, Otis > > Since Neil I making rabit attacks on this > > fundamental right > > Gromit! Start the Bun-Vac! > > -MT >Correstion: What does "Correstion" mean? BAAAAA-HAAAAAA-HAAAAAAAAA!!!! You slay me, Otis.. ;-)))) >In fact, I exonorate these ODs (except for their hubris). YOU are guilty of hubris, with your constant assertion that the only ones that deserve to be heard are you and the deity Leung. If ONE person at a party tells you you're too drunk, you can ignore him. If EVERYONE at the party tell you you're too drunk, it's time to sit down and shut up. Hubris. Hmph. I wonder how you can even walk straight. And, though I don't pretend to speak for the remainder of the populace, I expect most ODs in this group will suggest that you use your exonEration as a suppository - as that's where it'll be best used. > If ONE person at a party tells you you're too drunk, you can ignore > him. If EVERYONE at the party tell you you're too drunk, it's time to > sit down and shut up. Maybe we finally found a metaphor that Otis can follow. Congrats. SignatureScott Reverse name to reply >Maybe we finally found a metaphor that Otis can follow. Congrats. Here's hopin'. The "*whap* goes the ferret" campaign didn't get much traction, but maybe this will be less obscure. ;) > But some day in the future, second-opinion ODs like > Seve Leung OD will offer it to you -- before that > first minus is used on you. Have Dr. Steve post his efficacy data somewhere so we can see how he does something we can't do. Normally it'd be a peer-reviewed journal but I'd settle for any indication that he's compared people being treated versus people who aren't. Until then we're stuck with the human data we have. -MT Dear Mike, Some commentary: Have Dr. Steve post his efficacy data somewhere so we can see how he does something we can't do. Otis> Have you been reading the posts by "Central", Neil, and quite a few others AGAINST prevention with the plus???? Otis> If you attempted PREVENTION with the plus, you would be sued, kicked out of optometry, and God knows what. Otis> No, Mike, you are prohibited by these people -- I understand and accept it that way. Otis> Steve recognizes the implication of the Wildsoet data, and other scientific experiments and proof that the NATRUAL PRIMATE EYE "follows" shifts in the average visual-enviroment. Otis> He implements this concept with his own children -- which is the real test of a man's understanding of these issues. Otis> The public, like Neil & company get the "staight" minus lens -- and love it. No problem there. Why should he "fight" with them? I would not, nor would I expect you to do it either. Mike> Normally it'd be a peer-reviewed journal but I'd settle for any indication that he's compared people being treated versus people who aren't. Otis> Sure, Mike, that was the Oakley-Young study with you throw out the window, along with the primate data and all other pure scientific proof where you hate the implications of the scientific proof. Mike> Until then we're stuck with the human data we have. Otis> Mike, I separate pure scientific truth and proof from human nature. (Do not take offense.) Otis> In the posts of Neil and company you have human "nature" at work. No sense in tring to change THAT. And I can expect nothing from you for that reason. Best, Otis On 28 Feb 2006 18:47:09 -0800, in sci.med.vision you wrote: > Dear Mike, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Otis> Have you been reading the posts by "Central", Neil, and > quite a few others AGAINST prevention with the plus???? Is Dr. Steve even alive?????? Does he have a voice?????? Can he type on a keyboard?????? If he is real, have him come to this newsgroup so HE can talk for himself Otis. Or is this another made up story from you???? He is older then 16, so I think he can speak for himself. I would hope he is not a child. Dr. Steve does not need Otis an engineer to speak for him unless he is an imaginary figure in your brains. Best, Allen > Dr. Steve does not need Otis an engineer... Aw, jees, you just had to throw that in didn't you? Maybe you could re-word it? Something like "Otis the engineer". Then it would not infer that Otis IS an engineer but include things like self proclamation. We know he's not a doctor but now we have doctors calling him an engineer. I feel sullied somehow. -:) -Quick > Aw, jees, you just had to throw that in didn't you? > Maybe you could re-word it? Something like "Otis > the engineer". Then it would not infer that Otis IS > an engineer but include things like self proclamation. Hmmm, do engineers have licenses for certification? Maybe I should word it Otis the "alleged engineer" *big smile* Everything else he says is suspect, why not that? Allen >Have you been reading the posts by "Central", Neil, and quite a few others AGAINST prevention with the plus???? I never argued against anything but YOUR CONDUCT. You silly, apparently deeply deranged, little man. >and all other pure scientific proof where you hate the implications of the scientific proof. Wow. I mean, WOW. You're slowly sinking from spelling and grammatical errors into pure gibberish. Hold on - I need to make some popcorn. ;-))) |
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.