 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / May 2007Neil Brooks Respect for Memorial Day
Subject: Neil Brooks has hit a new low. Let us get his name on his message. Does this man have ANY sense of personal honor? Otis ======================= Dear Second-Opionon Friends, Subject: in memoriam I thought we should take a moment to honor those who gave their lives in service of tihs "nation." Along with that, I will spend this weekend reflecting on AND honoring the loss of my cognitive function. It gave its life in the DISSERVICE of eyesight and vision. Of all the tings I have "lost," it is my MIND that I miss the most. Enjoy, Neil Brooks =============== It seems that it is Neil Brooks who is losing his mind. There are second-opinion doctors, like Jacob Liberman Ph.D. who suggest avoiding use of the minus -- and other "clearing" methods. That is a matter of the second-opinion, and that is fair. Launching personal attacks against people who hold a difference of opinion is not how you resolve scientific question. Otis S. Brown Neil, you have a very nice personal web site: http://nbeener.com/ But you list no profession. What exactly do you do for a living, other than attacking an honest second-opinion on preventing entry into nearsightedness? And do you have an identical twin? Otis On May 25, 9:15 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Subject: Neil Brooks has hit a new low. > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Otis S. Brown On May 25, 6:38 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Neil, you have a very nice personal web site: Thanks :-) > http://nbeener.com/ Most people could have figured that out from the link that I've posted a thousand times, posing questions to YOU that you will not answer. I guess you've finally figured out how to access the home page. Bully for you. Given another fifty years on this planet, you might show some progress on the vision science front, too! > But you list no profession. What exactly do > you do for a living, other than attacking > an honest second-opinion on preventing > entry into nearsightedness? Fond of ASKING questions, but never willing to ANSWER them, eh? Doesn't fly. You start: http://nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt Not so tough, really. Just give it a try. On May 25, 9:15 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Subject: Neil Brooks has hit a new low. > There are second-opinion doctors, like [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > is fair. > Otis S. Brown WTF does your repetitive shameless promotion of your dumb unproven plus theory have to do with Memorial Day? you won't leave any stone unturned in your attempts to thrust your ideas on people will you? go play some solitaire and leave everyone in this newsgroup alone! Dear PClar, I know that YOUR majority-opinion is that it is impossible to clear your vision -- by any method. Since you deny it, here are some more remarks about Dr. Liberman and his vision-clearing works WITH OTHER OPTOMETRISTS. If a layman posted this -- I would have some doubt. But when a prevention-minded optometrist does it, then he has great credibilty. Some basic remarks: -1 diopter usually (on the average) is 20/70 -2 diopters is therefore 20/140 -3 diopters, 20/210 -4 diopters, 20/280 -5 diopters, 20/350 -6 diopters, 20/420 -7 diopters, 20/490 -8 diopters, 20/560 There can be considerable over-prescription in a person or child. I would NEVER accept a perscription UNLESS I PERSONALLY CHECKED MY OWN SNELLEN. I simply do not trust the measurement of a person who is arrogant, or does not care -- about my long-term distant vision. Thus, this vision-clearing as described by Dr. Liberman is profound. His checking of visual acuity is first-rate. Remember, 20/200 vision (or worse) is considered to be legal blindness -- again for comparison. But this "clearing" should be part of your understanding of these issues. Just remember that the majority-opinion doctor insists that ANY CLEARING OF YOUR SNELLEN IS IMPOSSIBLE. =============== Here is the report by Dr. Liberman, a highly qualified optometrist, using these methods ON OTHER OPTOMETRISTS: PERSON BEFORE 6 HOURS 24 HOURS Soo Tan 20/600 6 hour = 20/225 24 hour =20/25 (-3) Elvira Able 20/400 6 hour = 20/100 24 hour = 20/25 (-1) Jenny Livanos 20/225 6 hour = 20/180 24 hour = 20/25 (-1) Paul Dickson 20/160 6 hour = 20/30 24 hour = 20/20 Report by Dr. Jacob Liberman The (-2) indicates that 2 letters were missed out of approximately six letters. So this is the Bates methods, and variations of it. These four optometrists are all listed in Dr. Liberman's book. So the issue is this. Who do you believe? The majority opinion that insists that the natural eye is not dynamic, or a second-opinion professional like Jacob Liberman. What this shows is the need for you to read your own Snellen and accept REASONABLE acuity -- before you get a -2 diotpers lens when your Snellen is 20/60 or better. What Dr. Liberman said in his book was to get rid of that minus as rapidly as possible. Yes you must pass the DMV level tests -- but the strong recommendation of a PROFESSIONAL is to NEVER wear a minus unless absolutly necessary. So there is a reasonable basis for prevention, developed by these successful prevention-minded professionals. Enjoy, Otis =============== On May 25, 9:50 pm, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote: > On May 25, 9:15 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > unturned in your attempts to thrust your ideas on people will you? go > play some solitaire and leave everyone in this newsgroup alone! On May 26, 12:07 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear PClar, > [quoted text clipped - 137 lines] > > unturned in your attempts to thrust your ideas on people will you? go > > play some solitaire and leave everyone in this newsgroup alone! ================================ Questions that Otis won't and can't answer: 1. What is your professional training, or professional experience, that allows you to give people advise on how to manage their vision and eyecare problems? What Optometry, Ophthalmology, or Optics training and/or experience do you have? 2. Why is it that many myopes who do not wear their minus lenses and are therefore walking around with net plus power on their eye 24/7, do not become less myopic. This is optically the same as wearing plus lenses all the time. Why is it that they don't revert to emmetropia? Why is it that they oftentimes become even more myopic? Your "theory" predicts the opposite! 3. How come hyperopes (far-sighted people) who wear no correction do not become more myopic (=less hyperopic) over time? They are straining to see, in exactly the same way that others do who get very close their reading material. They do it 24/7. It's the same as wearing glasses that are overminused. Your theory predicts their refraction should change, but it doesn't. Actually, they manifest even more hyperopia around age 40. 4. How come, in a study published by Goss et al. (Am Jour Optom Physiol Opt. Feb;61(2):85-93, 1984) children who were overminused on purpose did not become myopic any greater than children who wore their proper spectacle prescription? Your "theory" predicts the opposite! 5. How come, when myopic patients were undercorrected so as to leave them slightly myopic even with their glasses on they continued to develop myopia, and actually at an accelerate rate (Chung K, Mohidin N, O'Leary DJ. Undercorrection of myopia enhances rather than inhibits myopia progression. Vision Res. 2002, 42: 2555-9.) Your "theory" predicts the opposite! 6. How come the Hong Kong Progressive Lens Myopia Control Study (Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 2002;43:2852-2858) concluded that using bifocal lenses on children has no effect on myopia progression? Your "theory" predicts the opposite! On May 25, 6:15 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Subject: Neil Brooks has hit a new low. > Does this man have ANY sense of personal honor? I've never HURT anybody as a result of my contributions to vision and eyesight newsgroups. You've hurt at least a dozen ... that I know of. Further, you've never helped anyone (how's your niece doing?). You've got quite a set of brass ba**s to insinuate that =I= have issues of honor. You have neither a conscience nor a soul. -- Subject: Neil Brooks has hit a new low. Let us get his name on his message. Does this man have ANY sense of personal honor? -- LMFAO... nice comeback Otis ;-) -- It seems that it is Neil Brooks who is losing his mind. -- Agreed. -- Launching personal attacks against people who hold a difference of opinion is not how you resolve scientific question. -- Well said, mate. -- But you list no profession. What exactly do you do for a living, other than attacking an honest second-opinion on preventing entry into nearsightedness? -- Yes, Neil, I too would like to find out - Do you have a life? (honestly) -- I've never HURT anybody as a result of my contributions -- Sure, sure. That's what they all say. -- Fond of ASKING questions, but never willing to ANSWER them, eh? -- Fond of BEING a GIT, but never willing to GET A LIFE, eh? -- Given another fifty years on this planet, you might show some progress on the vision science front, too! -- Given another fifty years on this planet, YOU might get a life. -- You've hurt at least a dozen ... that I know of. -- And *I* don't give a CRAP. People who can't make intelligent decisions deserve to be hurt. Now please, Neil, take your bull$hit elsewhere. Thanks. So I just want to get this right. Neil Brooks says regarding Otis: >You've hurt at least a dozen ... that I know of. So then you say: >And *I* don't give a CRAP. > >People who can't make intelligent decisions deserve to be hurt. Wow. Its amazing what kind of trolls and idiots Otis attracts to this newsgroup. > And *I* don't give a CRAP. Then you're nothing more than a heartless, soulless, insensitive jacka$ $ ... just like ol' Uncle Otie here :-) > People who can't make intelligent decisions deserve to be hurt. I'm not a Social Darwinist. I think those are the people who MOST deserve our protection and help. > Now please, Neil, take your bull$hit elsewhere. Not gonna' happen. Filter me, ignore me, or leave the group. Love, Neil A word of advice: - What goes around comes around. That means,Uncle Brookie, that if ever again I find you 'sh.t stirring'- I'll be sure to return the favor. Don't like it? Don't be a sh.t stirrer*. *A person that deliberately makes provocative and inflammatory posts with the intention of causing disrupt within a group/message board. > A word of advice: - I can hardly wait. > What goes around comes around. Here's hoping.... > That means,Uncle Brookie, that if ever again I find you 'sh.t stirring'- I'll > be sure to return the favor. I'll be right here ... trying to deal with the almost paralytic fear you've induced. > Don't like it? I'm good with it. Love the hypocrisy, though, of you telling me to get a life, then promising to make yours in this way ;-) > Don't be a sh.t stirrer*. You and Otis both have a great deal of difficulty with terminology and definitions, don't you. > *A person that deliberately makes provocative and inflammatory posts with the > intention of causing disrupt within a group/message board. Nah. Not me. I just need people to see through the kindly, avuncular Uncle Otie's sophistry and casuistry and realize what he truly is: a dangerous, uneducated, irrational, illogical fool. You'll be helping me. For that, I'm thankful. -- You'll be helping me. For that, I'm thankful. -- No problem, dear. I just hope you've learnt your lesson. ;-) 'If sh.t goes around then sh.t will come around.' - Adolf Venegrad >> Now please, Neil, take your bull$hit elsewhere. > > Not gonna' happen. > > Filter me, ignore me, or leave the group. If we were to filter you, your camp followers, and sock puppets, I'm not sure there'd be anything left to read. Signal to noise ratio would improve considerably, though. > Love, Neil Love only to see yourself in print, actually... > If we were to filter you, your camp followers, and sock puppets, I'm not > sure there'd be anything left to read. Signal to noise ratio would > improve considerably, though. Then just do it ... but silently. You'll have to filter me on YOUR side though. It's an unmoderated group ... otherwise, there wouldn't BE an Otis Brown here. > Love only to see yourself in print, actually... Again, Dave: call me after you've lived with double vision for a few months. Then, at least, I'd respect your opinion. People who've been active on this board for a while know exactly what I'm talking about. Otis helps nobody. He hurts people. That's not cool. YMMV. >> If we were to filter you, your camp followers, and sock puppets, I'm not >> sure there'd be anything left to read. Signal to noise ratio would >> improve considerably, though. > > Then just do it ... but silently. You'll have to filter me on YOUR > side though. Of course. I assumed you'd understand my meaning. > Again, Dave: call me after you've lived with double vision for a few > months. Then, at least, I'd respect your opinion. Actually, right now, and for most of the past year, I'd be more than happy to experience some (binocular) double vision. At least there'd be *something* coming from my left eye. Double vision could be fixed with a prism. > People who've been active on this board for a while know exactly what > I'm talking about. Otis helps nobody. He hurts people. > > That's not cool. YMMV. My point is that it shouldn't be *your* responsibility to prevent such alleged harm. Even when Otis posts something as innocuous as a link to printable Snellen charts, you attack him, on a purely personal basis. It makes *you* look like a single-minded fool. From other statements you've made, I doubt you're a fool, but that's the way you come across. 'Nuff said. > My point is that it shouldn't be *your* responsibility to prevent such > alleged harm. Even when Otis posts something as innocuous as a link to > printable Snellen charts, you attack him, on a purely personal basis. It > makes *you* look like a single-minded fool. From other statements you've > made, I doubt you're a fool, but that's the way you come across. The job needs doing. If you haven't figured out that I believe that, then you never will figure it out. People deserve to be protected from/enlightened about his lack of credentials, experience, accurate information, conscience, liability, and/or concern if/when he hurts them. I don't believe I jump on him for links to printable snellen charts. Others may. When he tries to offer /advice/, however, I try to be sure that people understand the nearly unfathomable limitations of using him as a source. Overwhelmingly, my attacks have NOT been personal. They are geared toward eliciting the fallacies behind his positions, the dishonesty in his information and use of statistics, and the outright lies (both of Omission and of COmission) that he spews forth with virtually every ... single ... post. It shouldn't require that somebody review six years of Otis's posting history to understand his pathology and avoid harm by trying his recommendations. Incidentally, though I snipped it, your comment about double vision being readily fixed with prism shows ... again ... that you haven't lived with double vision. Whether or not a (KNOWN) side effect can be resolved with additional treatment is entirely irrelevant. It's a KNOWN RISK that Otis never discloses or discusses. Why? Because he's a pathological zealot with no concern for the harm he causes, and (as yet) no liability for the consequences of his actions. Get the feeling I'm not very swayed here, Dave? > I don't believe I jump on him for links to printable snellen charts. > Others may. I stand corrected - it was not you, but p.clarkii. > Overwhelmingly, my attacks have NOT been personal. > Get the feeling I'm not very swayed here, Dave? I can agree to disagree and leave it at that, but I do see the consistency of the attacks as personal. As you say, the group is unmoderated, and no-one can actually block another, either for posting unsupported (and allegedly dangerous) information, nor for being a gadfly. I'd just like to see the S/N improve. Dave > > I don't believe I jump on him for links to printable snellen charts. > > Others may. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I can agree to disagree and leave it at that, but I do see the > consistency of the attacks as personal. I don't know you, Dave--obviously. Not from s.m.v. or from anywhere else. But my story is an old one here: Otis makes kind, caring, helpful, compassionate doctors leave. Has for years. He is a Johnny One-Note, and even THAT single note is horribly wrong. He DOES hurt people. Who is going to provide the free information to worried people/parents who come here looking for advice? Will it be Otis?? No. He sits on the sideline and sets traps, spewing bull$hit to his heart's content. If somebody has a REAL eye problem, who will help them when Otis has run them all off? I started on this group about seven years ago. I've learned a lot in that time. Mostly, what I've learned is that--as long as Otis Brown contributes to this forum--the intellectual exchange of ideas concerning vision among educated people (whether or not they are vision professionals) is nearly non-existent. They tire of his crap ... and he never seems to tire of slinging it. He reminds me of what Stephen Colbert said about George W: He believes the same thing on Wednesday that he did on Monday ... no matter what happened on Tuesday. It gets old. Really old. For how many years do you expect people to try to maintain a =reasonable= dialog when he won't engage, is horribly wrong, dishonest, misleading, deceptive, evasive, accusatory, insulting, defamatory, and rude himself. At what point would you understand if the replies DID get personal? > As you say, the group is unmoderated, and no-one can actually block > another, either for posting unsupported (and allegedly dangerous) > information, nor for being a gadfly. I'd just like to see the S/N improve. Ever think about coming at the problem from the other direction (ie, Otis)? The only thing I've ever harmed around here is my own reputation. It's mine to harm. Otis has harmed the vision of innocent children (who do you think is "at the threshold?"), either posting here themselves or through their worried and desperate parents. That's reprehensible and unconscionable, and--as I say--I've connected with a dozen whom he's hurt ... and not a one who feels that anything productive came out of his advice. Think about it. I've 'thought about it', and I've come up with an idea! Why tire yourself out so unnecessarily, Neil? Why not just jam EVERY 'otie-flame' that you've ever posted, and cram it all up into one post. Then you can just code a macro so that every time Otie posts anything, your message appears. Wouldn't it make life so much easier?! Now there's a thought!! =O > I've 'thought about it', and I've come up with an idea! > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > -- > Message posted via MedKB.comhttp://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/vision/200705/1 > I've 'thought about it', and I've come up with an idea! > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > -- > Message posted via MedKB.comhttp://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/vision/200705/1 some of us used to immediately post an "Otis disclaimer" following everything post he made. thats been done before but unfortunately it is not automatic, it requires that someone monitor the newsgroup constantly. what happens is otis goes away for awhile, and then after a week or so some distraught parent posts a question about their child's eye problem and then Otis responds by farting-out his lies, misstatements, and links to fringe-group alternative-medicine web sites that actually stand to harm the child (or at least not offer any real help). A fact is that Otis Brown is at least a moron, and is definitely a threat to the welfare of many peoples visual health. He is a veritable fountain of disinformation who presents himself as a helpful old benevolent "Santa Claus-like" figure and thus he can readily lead innocent soles off in the wrong direction. I don't know why you guys want tp defend poor-old mistreated Otis Brown. he is a proponent of an invalid incorrect vision improvement method that has been thoroughly proven wrong and can actually harm some people! The scientific and medical publications that prove what I am saying have been presented here ad nauseum. I know. I am a practicing optometrist who also has a Ph.D. in physiological optics. Otis Brown is a zealot on a mission to mislead people. so I would have to ask why you are trying so hard to defend him? perhaps you would also defend OJ Simpson at a retrial in his murder case? what would be best for SMV would be for Otis Brown to leave. then all the heated postings would stop and patients could actually get answers to questions that are useful. -- what would be best for SMV would be for Otis Brown to leave. then all the heated postings would stop and patients could actually get answers to questions that are useful. -- BE rational - That clearly isn't about to happen. If you really do wish for Otis to leave, then I can present the solution. Do you have any idea WHY Otis loves this place? It's because you guys ALWAYS argue against him. You guys ALWAYS reply to his 'spams'. This is the ONE THING you can do that will PLEASE the 'troll' (assuming that Otis is a troll). If you were to just IGNORE him, then I assure you, he'll lose his fun posting here. Eventually he will leave. And so THAT is your solution. What you do NOT do, the ONE THING you MUST NOT DO, is to keep spurring him on by replying to him. Now you listen to me. I CAME HERE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE SCIENCE AND MEDICS OF VISION. I did NOT come here TO HEAR YOU PRATTLING ON ABOUT this same old CRAP.. THANK-YOU. > -- > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > What you do NOT do, the ONE THING you MUST NOT DO, is to keep spurring him on > by replying to him. Otis doesn't care. tried that been there. otis harms people. sure everyone could just sit here and say nothing while Otis fills unsuspecting niave posters with a bunch of BS and lies. > Now you listen to me. > > I CAME HERE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE SCIENCE AND MEDICS OF VISION. > > I did NOT come here TO HEAR YOU PRATTLING ON ABOUT this same old CRAP.. how 'bout YOU go somewhere else also! you are a self-righteous a- hole. go away from this forum. no asked you how to handle our otis brown troll situation. > -- > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > -- Again, who anointed you hall monitor for this NG? > -- > Subject: Neil Brooks has hit a new low. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Well said, mate. Otis is a nice old man, but even people like myself, who are slow and no expert in the field, realize that Otis just makes stuff up and repeats it endlessly. He refuses to answer questions, except from people who have no knowledge or experience at all, and might swallow what he says. Perhaps you would do well to sit back and read what Otis posts and what the responses are. You would soon get an education. |
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
|
©2009 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.