 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / September 2007You're doing it again, Uncle Otie....
[quote]Dear Prevention-minded friends, I do not negotiate with people who choose to insult me. They are arrogant idiots, and you can judge them yourself. We have Mike Tyner insisting that 99 percent of the population are not myopic. Then you have the arrogant and ignorant insults of PClar. They may have a "position" in their office, and they can make your vision "sharp" in five minutes, but that is all they have "going" for them. This is PClar from sci.med.vision: =============== Otis> Subject: The PREVENTIVE second-opinion. PClar> Have you ever considered seeing a psychoanalyst? you are irrational at best and quite likely mentally ill. [This is PClars response to ANYONE who asks ANY HONEST QUESTION about the dynamic behavior of the fundamental eye -- ON A SCIENTIFIC LEVEL. OSB] PClar> there is no "second-opinion". it's just Otis' opinion. [Of course this is a office-fib. Just read: www.chinamyopia.org to confirm. Steve Leung's evaluation, and prevention advocacy is indeed the second-opinion. Just typical of PClar to make this type of false statement. OSB] PClar> Otis, if your method works then how come it didn't when it was tested in a clinical study? And why aren't other studies published that demonstrate that it works? PClar> Regardless of what you say, there would be a HUGE interest in the eye care world in an effective method for preventing myopia. PClar> In Singapore alone they are pouring millions of dollars into studies looking for an effective method. PClar> Do you really think that everyone is so stupid that they have overlooked using dime store readers? PClar> No --- it just simply doesn't work. How can you deny reality? PClar> You would stand on railroad tracks and deny that a train was coming until it smashed you flat! ================ And majority-opinion optometrists believe it is scientific truth that only 1 percent of the population is myopic. Mike Tyner and PClar make a good team. But just keep them away from scientific facts and scientific truth. Otis[/quote] and again. Way to clear up your lie, Uncle Otie. Big props to you, you absolute f.cking idiot: [quote] Subject: MikeOD "explains" his statement about 99 percent not myopic. --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...> wrote: > Subject: I trust people who are honest about > scientific facts. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Otis [/quote] Yes, Neil Brooks is the self-appointed "Brain Trust" on sci.med.vision. And of course the wise judge of statistics is: MikeOD> 99% of the population does not have myopia. Good luck! > and again. Way to clear up your lie, Uncle Otie. Big props to you, > you absolute f.cking idiot: [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > And of course the wise judge of statistics is: > > MikeOD> 99% of the population does not have myopia. And of course you pulled my quote out of context. We call it "intellectual dishonesty". You call it a triumph. How nice for you. -MT > [quote]Dear Prevention-minded friends, > [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > > Otis[/quote] Whats the problem Otis? I stand by what I said 100%. I DO think you have serious mental issues-- no kidding. its not an attempt to insult you-- I just think its true. And why is it that "the plus" hasn't been proven to work like you claim it does? It HAS been tested and shown to be ineffective. And certainly prevention would be immediately embraced if such a method really existed but so far it hasn't panned out. You claim that OD's conspire to ignor it but you are wrong. we actually do care for the visual health of our patients-- that's our job-- and we would use a truly working method if it really existed. I cannot understand why you like to claim we are evil conspiring con-artists. we help people see better while you offer them nothing but disproven false hopes (and possible double vision). Give me a prevention method that really works and I would be a convert, but I will not run with the kooks like you by promoting a lie! I tell it like it is Otis. Call it whatever you like but what I've said is true-- and who cares what freako Steve Leung says. He's a nutcase just like you. On Sep 18, 9:11 pm, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote, in part: > I cannot understand why > you like to claim we are evil conspiring con-artists. I can. If Otis had no "devil" to blame for his shattered dream of commercial aviation, then he couldn't handle it. Just like with Lena, OD's give Otis somebody to point to as evil, guilty, heartless, etc. It's just one of the many hallmarks of the truly simple-minded: the inability to say, "I just don't know the reason." He'd rather hate, vilify, demonize, and hang all of you, AND hurt innocent kids who take his advice [or hurt LOTS of others by chasing eye doctors away from this site], then to ever admit that maybe there was simply NOTHING that ANYBODY COULD HAVE DONE that would have kept him from being a high myope. In all seriousness, if he didn't have somebody to point to, I'm not sure he'd be around anymore. He's carrying a tremendous amount of regret, guilt, resentment, and trauma and for "what [he thinks] might have been, if only...." You're just his scapegoats. It sucks, but ... that's what you get from a pathological liar and a f.cking a.shole. Babbling Brooks has copied some remarks I made on MY SITE. Brooks does not have to read, nor comment on what I post there. But since he has chosen to cross-copy -- here is my response. Subject: The nature of majority-opinion arrogance -- is to claim that the second-opinion is trash. Here is PClar's statement: PClarOD> I tell it like it is Otis. Call it whatever you like but what I've said is true -- and who cares what freako Steve Leung says. He's a nutcase just like you. ================== Very typical. Tragically this does happen with SOME medical people. Here is some commentary about PClar's colossal arrogance: A REVIEW OF THE PAST APPROACH We should all thoughtfully evaluate the unfortunate effect of using an immediate and easy fix for the problem of nearsightedness. This situation of a self- perpetuating mistake (produced by public need and attitude) is sometimes recognized by the students of medicine. Dr. Perri Klass said it this way in VITAL SIGNS: "... Sometimes the awesome weight of medical knowledge is totally off the beam. You have to practice medicine with that in mind, with the knowledge that a hundred years or so along the road, they'll be telling stories about the medical theories of today to get a laugh of the medical students of 2085..." And about medicines' confidence in its routines: "... Or something so basic, so taken for granted, that no one has gotten around to questioning it. Whatever it is, probably the medical profession is collectively doing something really dumb and really damaging, and doing it with complete good will and typical medical self-confidence." This applies to vision. The demand for negative lens use comes partly from the public's demand for an instant solution, (and corresponding reluctance to properly use a plus lens) and not from a scientific assessment of the dynamic behavior characteristic of the fundamental eye. See second-opinion optometrists, please read: http://www.i-see.org/eyedocs.html for the TRUE second-opinion -- based on objective SCIENTIFIC fact. Best, Otis On Sep 19, 12:11 am, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote: > > [quote]Dear Prevention-minded friends, > [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] > > - Show quoted text - On Sep 19, 6:44 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Babbling Brooks has copied some remarks I made > on MY SITE. Brooks does not have to read, nor > comment on what I post there. But since he > has chosen to cross-copy -- here is my response. [NON-apology, NON-retraction snipped] No response at all. Just more of the same pathological lies and worthless bullshit from the f.cking idiot, Otis. On Sep 19, 9:44 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Babbling Brooks has copied some remarks I made > on MY SITE. Yeah, don't you just hate it when someones takes a post you put on one site, cuts it to bits, rearranges it, leaves crucial bits out and then posts it to some other site? I think that anyone who does such a thing should be banned from the Internet. Do you agree? Dr Judy > On Sep 19, 9:44 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Dr Judy I agree. [quote] --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...> wrote: > Subject: I trust people who are honest about > scientific facts. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > MikeOD> 99% of the population does not have myopia. WHO estimates 150 million people in the world have significant refractive error (myopia, hyperopia and astigmatism combined) 150 million out of 6 billion is about 2.5%. If myopes are half of them, then Mike is not far wrong; 98.5% of the world is not myopic. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr55/en/ > Most of you know that 88 percent of the Hong Kong > students (entering the University) are myopic. Most people in the world are not Hong Kong university students. Judy [/quote] We can all hold our breath waiting for Otis to issue a retraction and an apology. Ready? Go. > WHO estimates 150 million people in the world have significant > refractive error (myopia, hyperopia and astigmatism combined) Neil I think you confusing uncorrected with corrected. >From your link. "the World Health Organization (WHO) has released new global estimates which, for the first time, reveal that 153 million people around the world have uncorrected refractive errors (more commonly known as near- sightedness, far-sightedness and astigmatism). " Andrew On Sep 19, 6:48 pm, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote: > > WHO estimates 150 million people in the world have significant > > refractive error (myopia, hyperopia and astigmatism combined) [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Andrew And =I= think that =you= have mistaken Dr. Judy's post for being mine. Your turn. > And =I= think that =you= have mistaken Dr. Judy's post for being mine. > > Your turn.- True. :-) I wondered what it had to do with dr Judy:-) But you do appear to have liked what she said. And went onto say: >>We can all hold our breath waiting for Otis to issue a retraction and an apology. But what actually does it mean when Mike says that 99% of the world is not myopic? It seems to me that you and Dr Judy are both looking for evidence to support the case that only 1% of the world is myopic. Indeed you seemed to be quite happy to have apparently found that evidence to say Mike was right. He might be right but this whole thing seems to be about somehow taking what he said out of context and distorting what he meant which is what Mike is saying now as i understand it? And yet people are now hunting for information that 1% is correct?? Seems to me the facts here are irrelevant because the mission is more important. I see lack of objectivity. Andrew . > > And =I= think that =you= have mistaken Dr. Judy's post for being mine. > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > . I think he meant to say "not 99% of the world is myopic, it is some other number." He was obviously playing on words, and therefore open to misinterpretation. But, he revealed the intent in the next sentence. I think it is intellectually dishonest to take a sentence out of context. Of course, Otis meant something else as well, but is was not as apparent because there was no additional attempt at clarification. It's just another tempest in a teapot that Otis likes to create. Objectively speaking, this is the only reason Otis is here. > > > And =I= think that =you= have mistaken Dr. Judy's post for being mine. > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > PClar> there is no "second-opinion". it's just Otis' opinion. > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > PClar> You would stand on railroad tracks and deny that a train was > coming until it smashed you flat! Otis-- please point out the problem with what I wrote? What is incorrect or invalid in the points you extracted from my posts here at SMV. It is true that "second opinion" is an Otisis. It isn't used by anyone else that I have seen. And Steve Leung isn't a credible supporter for the statements you make. He has a wacky "alternative" website and can barely keep his license in China. Is he the only supporter of your whole "plus lens at the threshold .. blah... blah" theory? You really ought to do better than that-- and don't start quoting Raphaelson, or claiming that David Guyton supports you-- its bullshit. Perhaps you spoke to the man once, or send him a letter that he took the time to respond to, but that doesn't mean he is a supporter of a freako like you and your buddy Don Rehm. And Otis, there IS data that supports what I claim, i.e. that plus has no beneficial effect on myopia progression. You have been presented the data and study references by numerous people before. In contrast you have nothing credible, or rigorously investigated, that supports you. You just tell everybody to believe you because we are all evil stupid OD's and can't be trusted, not because what you say has been proven to be true. When asked to address some specific points that are asked to you by Dr. Tyner or Dr. Judy, you just change the subject to reviewing a few paragraphs from "The Printers Son". YOU CAN'T EVEN CARRY ON A SIMPLE COHERENT LINEAR DIALOGUE. And that leads me to my other point-- over the last couple of years I have watched you and I truly believe you aren't just stupid, or a troll, but that you are sick. You are psychologically ill; not hitting on all cylinders; not playing with a full deck. Etc. Etc. That's what I said and that's what I believe. I give you my permission to post it in whatever forum you wish. And why don't you just stay there and leave us alone here at SMV. > > PClar> there is no "second-opinion". it's just Otis' opinion. > It is true that "second opinion" is an Otisis. It isn't used by > anyone else that I have seen. Actually, it is a real phrase. So is "box camera". There are a lot of words that Otis uses that have real meanings. He has just given them alternative, poorly defined meanings. When Otis quotes "second option", my mind just translates that into "wrong opinion". |
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.