 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / August 2007Alex Eulenberg - DNA match for Otis??
I can't help but think that Alex is drinking from the same well as Otis Brown. Have a nice chuckle at his e-mail below--the one where he 'disapproves' my post showing Shotwell I, Shotwell I, and COMET as examples of randomized, controlled studies showing no benefit to plus/bifocal intervention, AND a meta-analysis of any and all available RCCT's, showing the same result: Just like Otis, rather than allow my post through, and attempt to clarify/argue his point before his members, he simply shuts down. Incidentally -- for those keeping score at home -- Alex DID reach out to Don Rehm to ask about risks of double vision associated with unprescribed use of the plus. Rehm's response perfectly mirrored my claim, yet Alex -- in his infinite, Otis-esque, blindness, asked ME for a retraction. When I finally made it crystal clear that Rehm CONFIRMED, not repudiated, my position, Alex ... mysteriously ... ceased participation in the discussion. Nobody HAS ever seen them in the same place at the same time. =========from Alex========= Hey, Neil this is what you said: > For anybody with an interest, there have been more than a few human > tests, comparing glasses wearers with NON glasses wearers. I said that there haven't been any such experiments. In all your pending posts purporting to give counterexamples, you give reference to experiments where all groups wear different types of glasses, pink glasses, bifocals, or self-reported full-time vs "distance only" wear, but in each case the control group and the experimental group both get distance corrections and wear them. What part of "NON glasses wearers" do you not understand? Let me give you a hint. A myopic "nonwearer" is someone who does NOT wear minus glasses. At all. Let me give you an analogy. A nondrinker is someone who does not drink alcohol. It is not someone who has "only" three glasses a day. Or someone who drinks cocktails but not liquor. It is someone who does not drink at all. Similarly, a nonsmoker is someone who does not smoke. Not someone who smokes "only" two packs a day instead of three, or smokes filter cigarettes, or smokes "only" when he "needs" to smoke. --Alex Neil, sorry to gripe but.... Posting copies of posts to other forums and of private e-mails drops you to the level of Otis. It isn't useful, encourages more Otis trolling and adds to the noise here. BTW, Alex is not Otis, he also actively blocks Otis posts to his forum and, I think, has been keeping Otis in check there. Dr Judy >Neil, sorry to gripe but.... > >Posting copies of posts to other forums and of private e-mails drops >you to the level of Otis. While I concede that the posting of a private e-mail may not be considered appropriate, snipping and running to a PRIVATE, AND MODERATED forum--where nobody can respond--is quite different, IMO from copying a publicly-pasted post to a public, unmoderated forum where others CAN weigh in. >It isn't useful, encourages more Otis >trolling and adds to the noise here. 1) If anybody from Alex's forum visits s.m.v., then I'd like them to know that Alex blocks the addition of valid clinical studies from HIS group in the same way that Otis blocks them from HIS. So, as always, it may not be useful to YOU, but .... 2) In my years of experience, Otis needs no encouragement, nor is it possible to discourage his posting. Nothing that anybody has ever DONE, or refrained FROM doing has had any effect on his posting frequency. Check the record. >BTW, Alex is not Otis, he also actively blocks Otis posts to his forum >and, I think, has been keeping Otis in check there. If, by "keeping Otis in check," you mean filtering out such things as unverifiable, third-hand anecdotes, misquotes, misinterpretations of studies, and lies of ommission, then I respectfully disagree. >Dr Judy X-No-Archive: Subject: The reason Alex set up i-see. Alex had a long-running argument with Dr. David B. Granet, a majority-opinion optometrist. Alex DID NOT AGREE with Granet's thesis that nearsighteness COULD NOT BE PREVENTED. All that is fine, since sci.med.vision is a majority-opinion site. Since then you have taken up Granet's "cause", and post on sci.med.vision. That is fine also. But when you FOLLOW Alex onto HIS SECOND-OPINION SITE, you can expect your commentary to get a complete review it never received on sci.med.vision. And now you cry about it. Otis [Post send to Alex for his review.] > >Neil, sorry to gripe but.... > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > - Show quoted text - X-No-Archive: CORRECTION: David B. Granet is an ophthalmologist, not an optometrist. Otis On Jul 29, 8:32 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > X-No-Archive: > [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > - Show quoted text - >CORRECTION: > >David B. Granet is an ophthalmologist, not an optometrist. He'll be so relieved that you cleared that up .... But I thought that you were ab-so-lute-ly certain that he and I were the same person? What happened to THAT argument, Uncle Otie?? X-No-Archive: Subject: The remarkable similarity in apperance of David B. Granet and Neil David Brooks. I suggest that the reader look at the picture of David and Neil and make a judgment about the probably that a Doctor and his patient look like identical twins. In fact there are many brothers who are not a similar as you are to David B. Granet. Seeing is believing -- as they say. > On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 17:54:11 -0700, "otisbr...@pa.net" > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > What happened to THAT argument, Uncle Otie?? >X-No-Archive: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >and Neil and make a judgment about the probably >that a Doctor and his patient look like identical twins. And ... again ... maybe it's time for you to be seen by a "majority opinion" eye doctor. Maybe it's ALSO time for you to have your medications adjusted. >In fact there are many brothers who are not a >similar as you are to David B. Granet. As always, Uncle Otie ... do you have a point here? >Seeing is believing -- as they say. And I think your seeing has been seriously degraded ... right along with your other faculties.... X-No-Archive: Neil, since you have no "profession" and do not understand engineering-design issues -- let me suggest the following: If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then there is a high statistical probability that it is a duck. Otis > On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 07:24:48 -0700, "otisbr...@pa.net" > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > And I think your seeing has been seriously degraded ... right along > with your other faculties.... >X-No-Archive: > >Neil, since you have no "profession" and do not >understand engineering-design issues -- let >me suggest the following: Hm. I thought we had talked about this. My profession is irrelevant. My information IS relevant. I was also an engineering major in college. That's one reason that it's so easy for me to recognize what an idiot you are. How's your myopic niece, Joy, incidentally -- you know: the one who never wore minus lenses, but DID wear plus lenses? THAT'S relevant. Dear Granet/Brooks, Subject: Posting under an assumed name. Otis>In fact there are many brothers who are not a similar as you are to David B. Granet. Brooks/Granet> As always, Uncle Otie ... do you have a point here? Otis> Yes. It reflects on your credibility. By posting under an assumed name, you start with a fib to begin with. Makes all your other posts suspect it terms of truthfulness and objective. Otis> If you want to defend the majority-opinion, then why not post under Granet, and we will respect your ophthamological opinion on the subject of the natural eye's dynamic behavior. > On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 08:34:17 -0700, "otisbr...@pa.net" > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > THAT'S relevant. >Dear Granet/Brooks, > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >ophthamological opinion on the subject of the >natural eye's dynamic behavior. Well, Otis, I guess it's probably because I'm not David Granet ... you senile, pathetic, old idiot! But never let the facts stand in the way of one of your assumptions, Otis. No. Don't do THAT. You're fragile little HEAD might implode. Hi, Alex is actually a very good friend of mine, in fact you might say we are related... So, please refrain from these hurtful comments directed towards him, because it is not nice. Hi, Alex is actually a very good friend of mine, in fact you might say we are related... I look up to him as my big brother. So, please refrain from these hurtful comments directed towards him, because it is not nice. > Maybe it's ALSO time for you to have your medications adjusted. Neil You are sinking pretty low here. How does this carnival benefit you? Perhaps there is a relationship to your own behaviour and the relatively serious eye problems you are suffering from? There is a well documented relationship in the literature for at least parts of your eye condition involving accommodation and factors that might not be so obvious. How about just taking a more easier attitude and just allow a bit of live and let live? I suggest you go ride your bike or go skating and do something a bit more productive with all of this energy that you have that at the moment seems to be destroying you as much as it destroys anybody else. Andrew On Aug 1, 8:32 am, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote: > > Maybe it's ALSO time for you to have your medications adjusted. > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Andrew Bravo. On Aug 1, 8:32 am, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote: > > Maybe it's ALSO time for you to have your medications adjusted. > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Andrew Well said! >> Maybe it's ALSO time for you to have your medications adjusted. > >Neil > >You are sinking pretty low here. I'm deadly serious. Hand his posting history to a panel of psychiatrists. He's far from okay. >How does this carnival benefit you? Well ... the odds are that it will "benefit" SOMEBODY more than anything that YOU are about to add. Take care, Andrew. Buh-bye. Before you go, Andrew (et al), take a look at this one. With any LUCK, you'll see what I think is so spectacular about it... <---- Alex: >> You misread what Rehm said. I have pointed this out to you again and >> again. Neil: > I'll quote it again. Perhaps you can enlighten me. Or ... perhaps > not. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > words OR the MEANING of his > words), please enlighten me. Here you go... > From: "Don" > Date: July 15, 2007 7:50:42 AM PDT [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > problem, the plus lenses can be decentered toward the nose. In bad > cases, the Myopter is available. Don Looking forward to your retraction. --Alex -----> Can anybody who reads this tell me who would owe a retraction to whom, and why? It's just a little quiz ... to help differentiate between those of faith and those of reason. Otis? Care to weigh in here? It's rather similar to my illustrious question: 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? Oh please, Neil -- shut up for once. > On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 00:32:18 -0700, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Take care, Andrew. Buh-bye. Neil You are not being clear here it seems to me. Do you really believe that NOTHING i say can benefit ANYBODY? I think actually you just did not like my reply, that you are angry, but cannot see that anger so clearly and yet it drives you to action. I ask again how does it benefit *you* to be responding to people like this? I think you need to think a bit about the consequences to your own health. Andrew >I think actually you just did not like my reply, that you are angry, >but cannot see that anger so clearly and yet it drives you to >action. Yeah, that's a pretty accurate summary of Neil. >But when you FOLLOW Alex onto >HIS SECOND-OPINION SITE, you can expect your commentary to get >a complete review it never received on sci.med.vision. > >And now you cry about it. Oh, no, Otis -- you insufferable moron -- this is far from crying (though -- in your condition -- I imagine that all SORTS of inexplicable emotional outbursts define your existence). I'm actually pointing out that Alex seems to have some measure of your pathological unwillingness to acknowledge contradictory facts even when they stare him in the face. He can't hold a candle to you, but damned if he isn't trying. So ... what you call a "complete review," most educated people would call "the idelogical brush-off of frightful zealots." Speaking of crying, though, care to run away, eyes welling up, from my usual questions? www.nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt But you won't give THAT a "complete review," either ... because it tends to make you look ... um ... foolish. Finally, I wouldn't mind, at all, my contribution getting what you call "a complete review" from the participants OF Alex's forum, but Alex was unwilling to permit the post to appear. Excluding Shotwell's studies, COMET studies, and a 2002 meta-study, "Interventions to retard myopia progression in children: an evidence-based update" is the sort of biased zealotry ordinarily reserved only for you -- you, who spends millions of words lobbying for "honest, scientific facts," but then forcefully excludes those that don't accord with your preconceived notions. How's Joy's myopia these days, incidentally? I notice you don't talk much about her eyesight.... > BTW, Alex is not Otis, he also actively blocks Otis posts to his forum > and, I think, has been keeping Otis in check there. Maybe we need Alex to return to s.m.v. if he can do that... > > BTW, Alex is not Otis, he also actively blocks Otis posts to his forum > > and, I think, has been keeping Otis in check there. > > Maybe we need Alex to return to s.m.v. if he can do that... please. no. |
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.