Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Vision / March 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

OTIS BROWN WARNING (03/06/2006)

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Neil Brooks - 06 Mar 2006 18:53 GMT
Dear Reader,

Before you consider paying attention to anything that Otis Brown
(otisbr...@pa.net) writes, I invite you to review all of his  previous
posts.

Not only is there no scientific data on humans to support his fantasy,
but there IS plenty that proves him wrong.

Otis gets the basis of his warped, disproved ideas from concepts
written a century ago and one study done on CHICKENS!

Any of you folks chickens ?

Otis Brown is more than simply bizarre.  He's wrong. See the weekly
(Mondays)  "welcome to sci.med.vision" for information on  how to
block his ramblings.

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 then, by all means, follow his advice, but do so
only under the care of a licensed  optometrist or ophthalmologist.

"Scientifically accepted proof" results from experiments conducted
within the "scientific method" explained here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Otis's posts tend to fall into the category of anecdotal (or made up):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

Otis's posts can be reviewed at:

http://snipurl.com/e77s
http://snipurl.com/fe3d

The results of clinical trials of using plus lens therapy to prevent
the progression of myopia can be found at (hint: it did not work):

http://snipurl.com/fij0

http://snipurl.com/fimq

http://snipurl.com/fimr

The details of a proper, controlled test have been proposed and can be
reviewed at the following site, beginning with Page 40, Section 7(A)
and continuing through Page 42:

http://books.nap.edu/books/0309040817/html/40.html

The remainder of this text
(http://books.nap.edu/books/0309040817/html) provides significant
information as well.  Nothing contained within supports Otis's theory.
Much, in fact, directly contradicts it.

By the way, Otis Brown is also under investigation by the State of
Pennsylvania for potentially practicing medicine without a license.
Neil Brooks - 06 Mar 2006 18:56 GMT
> Otis's posts tend to fall into the category of anecdotal (or made up):
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

For those who take issue with the Wikipedia definition of 'anecdotal
evidence,'

http://www.santarosa.edu/~dpeterso/permanenthtml/propaganda/prop_anecdotal.htm

http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/anecdotal.asp

http://skepdic.com/testimon.html

http://www.answers.com/topic/anecdotal-evidence

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=55090&page=2
 
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.