 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / December 2006Questions for Otis
Otis? You never HAVE answered these relevant, coherent, and important questions. Care to step outside yourself and--for the good of humanity--take a shot at them? 1. There seems to be a great deal of evidence that primates have widely differing visual systems. How is it that you feel so secure in saying that "all primate eyes" behave similarly ... in ANY regard? 2. In these monkey studies that you reference, isn't it true that the SAME STUDIES showed that, with even BRIEF periods away from the minus lens, the myopia was prevented? 3. If there was no medical indication that these monkeys needed corrective lenses at all, can you be sure that appropriate CORRECTION of somebody's REFRACTIVE ERROR will have similar results? If so, how? 4. You continually claim that a minus lens causes something that you call "stair-case myopia." Presuming that you mean that it does this in humans, do you have any valid clinical evidence for this claim? 5. You have repeatedly claimed that the Oakley-Young study is "proof" of this "stair-case myopia" phenomenon, but Oakley-Young only establishes that-in some people-myopia can get worse over time. It doesn't even CLAIM that a minus lens CAUSES this. Please explain your position. 6. Also-at least in part, based on the Oakley-Young study-you recommend that people use plus lenses to prevent myopia. Are you aware that the only people in the Oakley-Young study for whom plus lenses made ANY difference were those with diagnosed "near-point esophoria?" This is a convergence disorder. Do you have ANY EVIDENCE that the same result is likely with people who DO NOT HAVE this convergence disorder? 7. You claim to have known Donald Rehm, the founder of the International Myopia Prevention Association, for some decades. I presume that you are familiar with his FDA petition. In it, Mr. Rehm states: " if we converge without accommodating the appropriate amount, or if we accommodate without converging the appropriate amount, problems can develop for this small percentage of children such as eye fatigue, double vision, or other types of fusion problems. That is, the two images can no longer be fused together without discomfort. Normal binocular vision is interfered with." Is there a valid reason why you have not attempted to make people aware of these SERIOUS risks of unprescribed plus lenses? 8. You continually cite Fred Deakins as a (questionable) success story. Do you think it is honest NOT to mention that Mr. Deakins is--in truth--myopic, that he is trying to sell a $40.00 product, and that his "testimonial" is used as an inducement to buy this product? 9. Do you have any economic interest in the product sold by Mr. Deakins? 10. You claimed that you were not selling a book--until, that is, I provided links to websites where it WAS being sold for $24.95 (with your home address as the "send check to" address). You then claimed that the entire book was available for free on the internet--until, that its--I pointed out that only approximately four of 14+ chapters were on the internet. Would you please clarify whether or not you have ever received money for a copy of your book, "How to avoid nearsightedness: A scientific study of the normal eye's behavior?" If so, please state how many copies you have sold, and when the last copy was sold. If not, please state how long it has been since you received any money for this book. 11. Do you believe that it is dishonest NOT to mention that you have a commercial interest in inducing people to visit your website? 12. Presuming that you understand the difference between accommodative spasm (pseudomyopia) and axial-length myopia, would you please provide credible proof that either a) pseudomyopia CAUSES axial-length myopia, or that b) relieving pseudomyopia REDUCES axial-length myopia 13. You CONSTANTLY make reference to "Second Opinion" optometrists--presumably meaning those who share your views. Other than the now-infamous Steve Leung, are there ANY OTHER such "second opinion optometrists" in the ENTIRE WORLD? Does any of these people have any evidence to support the claims that you make? Would you please provide it? 14. Mr. Steve Leung is also trying to sell a book. Do you have any economic interest in the book sold by Steve Leung? Do you think it is honest NOT to mention that Mr. Leung is--in truth--myopic, that he is trying to sell a book, and that the "testimonials" on his website, and your repeated referrals TO his website are used as inducements to sell both your and his book? 15. Do you feel that it is HONEST NOT TO admit that--even though your niece, Joy, NEVER WORE MINUS LENSES, and DID USE PLUS LENSES, she is, at this time, a myope with a restricted driver's license? 16. I have posted, many times, links to the actual summaries of the myopia progression studies that you lie about [http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309040817/html/62.html]. Why do you tell people that they WILL SHIFT MYOPIC BY 1.3 DIOPTERS during the four years of college when the studies DO NOT SAY THAT AT ALL? Please explain your position and provide citations to the appropriate studies. Dear Neil, You may have wondered why you are a +6 diopter "hyperope". Wonder no longer. It turns out that the natural eye "follows" and applied PLUS LENS and discovered in the scientific test: http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/FundEye.html Yes, indeed, both Primate eyes and Neil Brooks eyes respond to a plus lens -- by moving more positive. In fact, Neil, you eyes prove my point. You got stair-case hyperopia -- same as the primate eyes. Thanks for proving my point with the primate-human eye. Q. E. D. Otis > Otis? You never HAVE answered these relevant, coherent, and important > questions. Care to step outside yourself and--for the good of [quoted text clipped - 100 lines] > explain your position and provide citations to the appropriate > studies. >Thanks for proving my point with the primate-human eye. I think we would have all been happier with the crickets. > >Thanks for proving my point with the primate-human eye. > > I think we would have all been happier with the crickets. infinitely. > Dear Neil, > > You may have wondered why you are a +6 diopter "hyperope". [another dazzling display of intellectual masturbation handily snipped] Actually, what I was wondering about is why you never answer my (or anybody else's) questions. > > Dear Neil, > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Actually, what I was wondering about is why you never answer my (or > anybody else's) questions. I have a thought on that, and it includes the words 'coward', 'hypocrite', 'sh*t' and 'chicken'. In no particular order. >You may have wondered why you are a +6 diopter "hyperope". > >Wonder no longer. It turns out that the natural eye >"follows" and applied PLUS LENS and discovered >in the scientific test: > It's that kind of stuff that gets my goat. I know you won't harm young myopes much by making them go without glasses, but here you're treading on thin ice. I think you mean by the above that you would actually take a +6 child out of his glasses. That would be a very bad form of child abuse. If I hear you doing that to anybody, I'll hunt you down personally. w.stacy, o.d. Just so nobody misunderstands me, I'll personally slap the cuffs on you and haul you in (commonly known as a citizen's arrest). > I'll hunt you down personally. > Just so nobody misunderstands me, I'll personally slap the cuffs on you > and haul you in (commonly known as a citizen's arrest). > > > I'll hunt you down personally. I prefer what I was originally thinking about your "hunting down" comment. Of course I have no idea what you mean, but whatever it was, I'd have to cross state lines to do it, so it might be a federal offense... > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > > Of course I have no idea what you mean, but whatever it was, I'd have to > cross state lines to do it, so it might be a federal offense... You wouldn't have to cross state lines if you had the famous "staircase". :) >> Of course I have no idea what you mean, but whatever it was, I'd have to >> cross state lines to do it, so it might be a federal offense... > >You wouldn't have to cross state lines if you had the famous >"staircase". :) Fly over to my place. I'll give you the 2 cent tour of his neighborhood. I don't know why he doesn't buy that house for sale across the street from him. The rag he sells, treats him well. Lots of suckers. I would like to see it in that pile up books the Germans were burning in the Indiana Jones movie. Sherman has learned fast :) Otis: Do you mind if I post Neil's questions again? Not that I really care. Otis? You never HAVE answered these relevant, coherent, and important questions. Care to step outside yourself and--for the good of humanity--take a shot at them? 1. There seems to be a great deal of evidence that primates have widely differing visual systems. How is it that you feel so secure in saying that "all primate eyes" behave similarly ... in ANY regard? 2. In these monkey studies that you reference, isn't it true that the SAME STUDIES showed that, with even BRIEF periods away from the minus lens, the myopia was prevented? 3. If there was no medical indication that these monkeys needed corrective lenses at all, can you be sure that appropriate CORRECTION of somebody's REFRACTIVE ERROR will have similar results? If so, how? 4. You continually claim that a minus lens causes something that you call "stair-case myopia." Presuming that you mean that it does this in humans, do you have any valid clinical evidence for this claim? 5. You have repeatedly claimed that the Oakley-Young study is "proof" of this "stair-case myopia" phenomenon, but Oakley-Young only establishes that-in some people-myopia can get worse over time. It doesn't even CLAIM that a minus lens CAUSES this. Please explain your position. 6. Also-at least in part, based on the Oakley-Young study-you recommend that people use plus lenses to prevent myopia. Are you aware that the only people in the Oakley-Young study for whom plus lenses made ANY difference were those with diagnosed "near-point esophoria?" This is a convergence disorder. Do you have ANY EVIDENCE that the same result is likely with people who DO NOT HAVE this convergence disorder? 7. You claim to have known Donald Rehm, the founder of the International Myopia Prevention Association, for some decades. I presume that you are familiar with his FDA petition. In it, Mr. Rehm states: " if we converge without accommodating the appropriate amount, or if we accommodate without converging the appropriate amount, problems can develop for this small percentage of children such as eye fatigue, double vision, or other types of fusion problems. That is, the two images can no longer be fused together without discomfort. Normal binocular vision is interfered with." Is there a valid reason why you have not attempted to make people aware of these SERIOUS risks of unprescribed plus lenses? 8. You continually cite Fred Deakins as a (questionable) success story. Do you think it is honest NOT to mention that Mr. Deakins is--in truth--myopic, that he is trying to sell a $40.00 product, and that his "testimonial" is used as an inducement to buy this product? 9. Do you have any economic interest in the product sold by Mr. Deakins? 10. You claimed that you were not selling a book--until, that is, I provided links to websites where it WAS being sold for $24.95 (with your home address as the "send check to" address). You then claimed that the entire book was available for free on the internet--until, that its--I pointed out that only approximately four of 14+ chapters were on the internet. Would you please clarify whether or not you have ever received money for a copy of your book, "How to avoid nearsightedness: A scientific study of the normal eye's behavior?" If so, please state how many copies you have sold, and when the last copy was sold. If not, please state how long it has been since you received any money for this book. 11. Do you believe that it is dishonest NOT to mention that you have a commercial interest in inducing people to visit your website? 12. Presuming that you understand the difference between accommodative spasm (pseudomyopia) and axial-length myopia, would you please provide credible proof that either a) pseudomyopia CAUSES axial-length myopia, or that b) relieving pseudomyopia REDUCES axial-length myopia 13. You CONSTANTLY make reference to "Second Opinion" optometrists--presumably meaning those who share your views. Other than the now-infamous Steve Leung, are there ANY OTHER such "second opinion optometrists" in the ENTIRE WORLD? Does any of these people have any evidence to support the claims that you make? Would you please provide it? 14. Mr. Steve Leung is also trying to sell a book. Do you have any economic interest in the book sold by Steve Leung? Do you think it is honest NOT to mention that Mr. Leung is--in truth--myopic, that he is trying to sell a book, and that the "testimonials" on his website, and your repeated referrals TO his website are used as inducements to sell both your and his book? 15. Do you feel that it is HONEST NOT TO admit that--even though your niece, Joy, NEVER WORE MINUS LENSES, and DID USE PLUS LENSES, she is, at this time, a myope with a restricted driver's license? 16. I have posted, many times, links to the actual summaries of the myopia progression studies that you lie about [http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309040817/html/62.html]. Why do you tell people that they WILL SHIFT MYOPIC BY 1.3 DIOPTERS during the four years of college when the studies DO NOT SAY THAT AT ALL? Please explain your position and provide citations to the appropriate studies. Neil Brooks posted the follwing statement against YOUR right to an informed, competent second-opinion. Since he has done so -- I will not respond to him. If Neil will acknowledge this charge is fales -- then I will respond. __________________________________ Dear Prevention-minded friends, Any statement I make -- I have checked my self in every possible way. I do acknowledge that only prevention on the threshold is possible. I also wish -- profoundly -- that I had been on the RECEIVING end of my advice. That is BEFORE I was put into a strong, over-prescribed minus. I wish I had received and used the preventive information I supply. I have posted discussion of these issues on sci.med.vision. Because Neil D. Brooks does not like the concept of plus-prevention he filed a "charge" against me in the State of Pennsylvania. Anyone can file any "charge" they wish -- for any reason or no reason. The State will respond as follows: The response to Neil Brook's filing: ================================ Commonwealth of Pennasylvania Professional Compliance Office December 29, 2005 To: Neil D. Brooks 5707 Stanta Fe St. Sandiego, CA 92109-1622 Phone: 858--483-5292 Dear Complaintant: This letter will acknowledge recipt of your formal complaint filed against Otis S. Brown We will conduct an inquiry into the allegations. Unfortunately, due to then uber oif cases, we are unable to provide regular status reports or updates. You will, at the least, benotified of the final disposition of your complaint. Thank you for your patience. Sincerely, Patty Ridley Professional Compliance Office > Otis? You never HAVE answered these relevant, coherent, and important > questions. Care to step outside yourself and--for the good of [quoted text clipped - 100 lines] > explain your position and provide citations to the appropriate > studies. > If Neil will acknowledge this charge is fales -- then > I will respond. Stop giving medical advice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! UNTIL THEN, THE CHARGES ARE TRUE Allen |
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.