 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / March 2006OTIS BROWN WARNING (03/11/2006)
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. Jeeze Neil, All I stated was the scientific formula: Image distance = 1 / focal-power Or do you need a medical doctor to explain this calculation to you? And you fly off the handle. Incredible, Otis I thought you went away Cletis. Why did you come back? dr grant Dear Grant, Neil does not "like" math calculations -- and posts against this equation. If this equation is not correct, the please post the correct equation. Please do not call people names if they ask honest questions about these equations. Just affirm that the calculation is correct, or provied a more accurate equation. Best, Otis > If this equation is not correct, the please > post the correct equation. The original post concerned the difference between the two eyes. You averaged them to a single value and waxed scientific about the value of 1/f. > Just affirm that the calculation is correct, > or provied a more accurate equation. How does your equation help with her problem? -MT Dear Second-opnion friends, Here is the an email sent to me by Neil Books. Question: Is this man of sound mind? +++++++++++++++++ >From Neil Brooks: You wrote: "Jeeze Neil," Well, Jeeze, UncleOtie ... how 'bout taking a long hard suck on my a$$?? How's that State of Pennsylvania investigation going, anyway? Get your subpoena yet?? > Dear Second-opnion friends, > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > How's that State of Pennsylvania investigation going, > anyway? Get your subpoena yet?? Funny, Otis. I don't recall sending you an e-mail, though I do admire the literary style. Yes Neil, you can add amnesia to your psychosis. Otis go away pathetic otis. your wife would want you to quit this stupid crusade of yours. not only are you getting humiliated in a public forum, but people send abusive letters and e-mails to you. and now you have been reported to the authorities. will you ever stop beating your head against the wall? or do you fancy yourself some kind of tragic figure in a drama starring raphaelson, sterling colgate, and otis brown engineer? sick. pathetic. > Dear Second-opnion friends, > > Here is the an email sent to me by Neil Books. Please provide PROOF Otis that Neil sent the message. Mail headers to be specific. Read this slowly Otis, I want to see the mail headers to the message that Neil allegedly sent you. I bet you can't or won't provide the proof. Allen Dear Allen, Send me an email -- and I will forward this email, and many others like them. Otis Dear Allen, Here is Neil's emal -- which he claims he never sent. Otis ============== From: "Neil Brooks" <NEIL.BROOKS@sbcglobal.net> To: <otisbrown@pa.net> Subject: s.m.v. - back again, eh? Date: Saturday, March 11, 2006 6:32 PM You wrote: "Jeeze Neil," Well, Jeeze, UncleOtie ... how 'bout taking a long hard suck on my a$$?? How's that State of Pennsylvania investigation going, anyway? Get your subpoena yet?? > Dear Allen, > > Here is Neil's emal -- which he claims he never sent. > > Otis Not enough Otis, Anybody can copy and paste an email address. Post to the group something like this. Below shows your mail headers and where you sent from. Show me what Neil sent you showing the IP address he emailed from. If you don't do this, then what you post means squat. In spite of your email address we can see you post using Google groups. Allen Path: bigbe1.bellsouth.net!bigfeed.bellsouth.net!bigfeed2.bellsouth.net!news.bellsouth.net!news.glorb.com!postnews.google.com!j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: "otisbrown@pa.net" <otisbrown@pa.net> Newsgroups: sci.med.vision Subject: Re: OTIS BROWN WARNING (03/11/2006) Date: 12 Mar 2006 12:00:44 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 7 Message-ID: <1142193643.989724.312000@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com> References: <1142107922.646923.297210@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com> <1142108164.771559.307330@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <1142110720.386345.198400@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1142113341.095712.271360@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com> <JEJQf.3045$k75.1474@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net> <1142124077.474586.83630@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <14gnhkotnf1f2$.7f0le7aajf50$.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.59.117.154 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1142193673 9628 127.0.0.1 (12 Mar 2006 20:01:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 20:01:13 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <14gnhkotnf1f2$.7f0le7aajf50$.dlg@40tude.net> User-Agent: G2/0.2 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98; YComp 5.0.0.0; FunWebProducts),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.59.117.154; posting-account=mQ_VEwwAAAB2GrsMKyvnH29kyncFlpeS Xref: bigfeed.bellsouth.net sci.med.vision:203173 > > Dear Allen, > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Not enough Otis, Alan, I *have* e-mailed Uncle Otis before. I have also e-mailed his infamous nephew, Keith, asking Keith whether his Uncle Otis was *clinically* insane before I decided whether or not to report him to the State of Pennsylvania. Keith assured me that Uncle Otis is *not clinically* insane, so I proceeded, despite my doubts about the assertion. With prior e-mails, I have no doubt that Uncle Otis could manipulate any information that he presented on this forum ... just as he consistently does to try make his case for plus lens use and stair-case myopia. As always, no sophistry by poor Uncle Otis converts his blather into fact.... >Dear Second-opnion friends, > >Here is the an email sent to me by Neil Books. > >Question: Is this man of sound mind? Otis, did you ever consider that maybe some troll is sending you e-mails and is using Neil's name? There are plenty of people who would do that sort of thing... |
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
|
©2010 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.