Fellow posters -- beware of the threat of Neil Brooks.

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by otisbrown, Nov 23, 2005.

  1. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Warning to anyone posting on Sci.med.vision
    about the bizzare Neil Brooks.

    I am interested in the "safety" of the Internet
    and freedom of speech -- that you not
    be attacked by other posters. Here
    is an example of what Neil Brooks
    does to fellow posters:


    Post office warning:

    Warning to anyone posting on sci.med.vision about Neil

    I express the general judgment that the natural eye is
    dynamic (on a scientific level). You can disagree with the
    perception of the natural eye's proven behavior if you wish.

    But Neil sends anonymous letters to my wife -- for Christ's
    sake. He also contacted my nephew, Keith -- another bizarre

    I think he is a threat to any OD who espouses the second
    opinion concerning the prevention of a negative refractive state
    for the natural eye.

    Here is the letter he sent my wife. The next step it to
    notify the post office, to protect YOU.


    September 30, 2005

    Dear Mrs. Brown

    Enclosed is one ($1.00) US Dollar. Please use your best
    efforts to keep Otis off the computer for a while.

    His constant posts on the newsgroup sci.med.vision are making
    him look extremely moronic.

    You don't want that, do you? Neither do we. For all our
    sakes, then, please pull the plug on his little Internet
    dalliances for a while. He must have other hobbies, right? Can't
    we nurture those for a few months?

    Thanks much.

    The Management


    (Neil Brooks did inclose $1.00. My wife was terrified by the
    anonymous letter.

    If Neil had signed it -- that would have been better.

    It is very clear (now) that the only person crazy enough to
    send this letter was Neil.

    I consider him a threat to your safety.

    The ODs are professional -- and as I said I respect them. We
    have a technical argument about the natural eye's dynamic behavior
    -- and ONLY that type of scientific argument.

    You will find that the judgment I maintain -- is shared and
    agreed to as the "second opinion". Read:


    If you doubt this.

    But Neil is bizarre in the extreme.

    otisbrown, Nov 23, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest


    What a *GREAT* letter!!

    OSB- All anybody has to do is a quick Google search to see that you
    post your drivel on numerous forums. The potential universe of people
    who think you're a nut job is nearly unlimited.

    I'd love to take credit for that particular missive, Dear Boy, but I
    didn't pen it. Neither would I spend a dollar on you.

    Seek help. Really.
    Neil Brooks, Nov 23, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest


    Then I take it you deny you wrote the letter.

    It is obvious that you did.

    Let me ask another question, Neil.

    Did you contact my nephew Keith B."

    Do you deny that you did?

    Have the guts to tell the truth for once.

    Yes or no?

    otisbrown, Nov 23, 2005
  4. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Take it elsewhere, Otis. Nobody is buying your story. What is your
    contribution here, other than antagonizing people? You seek to
    dominate every discussion and turn it towards your bogus idea of
    prevention using plus lenses.

    Dr. Leukoma, Nov 23, 2005
  5. otisbrown

    CatmanX Guest

    Where's the proof Cletis??

    CatmanX, Nov 23, 2005
  6. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest


    This issue is about Neil Brooks sending my wife
    anynomous letters -- an others who might
    wish to make second-opinion statements
    about the PREVENTION of a negative
    refractive state for their own children.

    Further, it is about Neil Brooks sending
    emails to my nephew -- which is
    none of his business.

    I am waiting for Neil to deny
    that he sent the letters and

    You are not involved in these

    otisbrown, Nov 23, 2005
  7. otisbrown

    A Lieberman Guest

    You are in a PUBLIC forum Otis. Anybody can jump in a thread.

    Don't like it? Take it to private email.

    A Lieberman, Nov 23, 2005
  8. I am waiting for Neil to deny that he sent the letters and emails.
    A public forum is a place where _anyone_ can participate in
    discussions, Otis. Continuing to accost the group as you do, and then
    complaining about someone else entering the discussion, is absolute
    hypocrisy. Makes your credibility sink lower than it already was. If
    you want a discussion to be kept private, keep it off the newsgroup.
    What are you, new? Jackass.

    You know, I _really_ enjoy following these exchanges. It's entertaining
    watching someone continue to embarass themselves and just keep coming
    back for more.

    Kind of reminds me of my brother talking about 'ferret bowling' - he
    used to have a pet ferret - he'd fling it down the hall like a bowling
    ball (I guess 'curling rock' would be more apt), and watch it go *whap*
    into the wall at the end, only to run right back, waiting for more.

    Watching Otis' antics, I can only conclude that he thrives on ridicule.
    Or, more likely, has absolutely no real-world social interaction, and
    has to resort to trolling to feel like he's got any contact in the
    world at all. Typical troll motivatations.

    Hey, Otis - *whap*!!. ;))
    The Central Scrutinizer, Nov 23, 2005
  9. otisbrown

    p.clarkii Guest

    this letter does not sound threatening in the least. actually i think
    its great!
    i wish i had sent it.

    go ahead and contact the post office. you will be a laughing stock
    there as much as you are here.

    if your wife was "terrified" as you say then she must be a loony as
    you. if my wife received such a letter she would show it to me and
    suggest that i "reconsider" what i've been doing. then she would
    probably tell our friends and have a joke at my expense. maybe that's
    what your wife is really doing!

    take the hint otis-- disappear.
    p.clarkii, Nov 23, 2005
  10. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    I am still expecting Neil to acknowledg
    the fact that he sent the letter.

    He can be an honest psycho, or
    a dishonest psycho.

    If he owns up to the letter -- I certainly
    will drop the subject.

    otisbrown, Nov 24, 2005
  11. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Sorry, but it wasn't me.

    Continue to blather away. You are providing low-cost entertainment
    for quite a few people ... you nut-job.
    Neil Brooks, Nov 24, 2005
  12. otisbrown

    serebel Guest

    Message for Otis, his wife and nephew: BOO!
    serebel, Nov 24, 2005
  13. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Neil,

    Then tell me Neil Brooks,

    Did you contact my nephew
    and bad-mouth the plus
    lens preventive method?

    You are obviously a
    false person and cover
    one lie -- with another.

    otisbrown, Nov 24, 2005
  14. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear fellow poster,

    The second-opinion is that a negative refractive
    state for the eye can be prevented.

    Here is a world-class SCIENTISTS who cleared
    his vision with the plus -- and BEGGED the
    NIH to help with prevention.

    Let me also remind you the we are talking
    about prevention only -- as suggested
    by the prevention minded OD,
    Steve Leung


    Think about it.


    Here is Dr. Colgate letter.

    (The following letter is taken from one of the United State's
    scientist Dr. Stirling Colgate who concerns the visual welfare of
    young children.)

    Letter to the National Institute of Health

    Dr. Elena Nightingale
    Director, Preventive Medicine
    National Institute of Medicine
    2101 Constitution Avenue
    Washington, DC 20418

    Dear Dr. Nightingale,

    The enclosed two reports are a statement concerning the prevention of
    myopia-the one within the profession by Francis Young ( "The
    Development and Control of Myopia in Human and Subhuman Primates",
    Contacto 19, p.16) and the other a discussion at an elementary level
    by myself, a physicist.

    The point is that myopia can be prevented in essentially all cases by
    appropriate management of the focal environment. It requires
    measuring each year the mean relaxed-state focal length of the eye
    during child development. When this refractive error is zero, one
    then uses any of the proven methods of preventing or inhibiting the
    progression of myopia.

    If the child does not progress beyond refractive error of zero, the
    child retains a refractive error of zero. This is called 20/20, 6/6
    or 1.0 vision. The simplest, easiest and least drastic means of
    inhibiting further progression of myopia is the use of positive lens
    glasses, +1.50 to +2.00 diopters for all reading and protracted close

    The eye progressively adapts to its mean focal environment starting
    from the focal properties of all new born babies, +4.00 to +6.00
    diopters, to progressively more near-sighted each year, usually -1/2
    to -1 diopters per year. Then at the age of 6 to 10 years the mean
    relaxed state focus, refractive error, passes through zero.

    The normal environment of distance and no reading means that when the
    refractive error becomes zero, the time average contraction of the
    ciliary muscles becomes small and further adaptation to the focal
    environment ceases. This way the normal development leads to and
    maintain zero refractive error.

    The un-natural environment of reading causes myopia by extending the
    progressive adaptation to the un-natural near point focal environment
    of the book. The logical and least disruptive action is to change the
    effective focal properties of the book to infinity. Elementary optics
    indicates the uses of a positive lens to accomplish this.

    Conventional ophthalmology has traditionally treated the symptom, not
    the cause. We wait until the individual has adapted to the near-point
    focal environment. This adaptation is called myopia. We then fit the
    person with a negative/concave lens, which endows the distant object
    with the focal properties of a close-by one. If the individual then
    uses the negative/concave lens glasses for reading, a further
    adaptation to a still closer point focus is made and the grotesque
    result is called progressive myopia.

    The optometry profession has traditionally defended itself on the
    basis that all focal properties of the eye are pre-determined
    genetically. One can equally well explain the observed very large
    genetic correlation function and myopia with a variable genetic
    endowment affecting the focal adaptation mechanism.

    Dr. Francis Young has, in my opinion, demonstrated conclusive
    scientific evidence for the existence and for the mechanism of this
    adaptive mechanism-namely the small, progressive and irreversible
    lengthening of he eyeball in response to the fluid pressure increase
    caused by a contraction of the ciliary muscle.

    The alleviation of myopia is a worthwhile goal. At the very least, an
    open choice and recognized knowledge of the causes and prevention
    would seem to me to be outstanding objective in preventive medicine.

    Stirling A. Colgate, Ph.D.
    Theoretical Physics Division
    MS-210, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory
    Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545

    VITA at 21 September 1989

    Degrees: B.A.(Physics), Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 1948
    PH.D. (Physics), Cornell university, Ithaca, NY 1952

    Dr. Stirling A. Colgate's PROFESSIONAL CAREER


    Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, Berkeley, CA (electron physics and
    accelerator physics)


    Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, CA( nuclear weapons diagnostics,
    controlled fusion ,lasers)1956-64 Group Leader, controlled fusion
    project.1959 Technical Advisor to the U.S. State Dept. Conference on
    the Discontinuance of Nuclear Weapons Tests,Geneva,Switz.1960-64
    Lecturer, Univ. of Calif. Berkeley, Elet. Engr. Dept. (plasma


    President of New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Socorro,
    NM. Director of Research .Professor of Physics-


    Adjunct Professor( Physics and Astrophysics) NMIMT.


    Los Alamos National Laboratory, Theoretical Division.


    Los Alamos National Laboratory, Group Leader, Theoretical

    Webmaster's note:

    Dr. Stirling Colgate is an international well-known physicist. Other
    than send him a courtesy reply, nothing was ever done about his
    request by the NIM. Perhaps, it is the responsibility of every parent
    instead of the nation.
    otisbrown, Nov 24, 2005
  15. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Mike,

    It is clear that you can effectively block any
    true-preventive effort with a strong plus at
    the threshold.

    But, for an educated person who realizes
    that you can be of no help to them,
    that makes it their responsibility
    to understand these issues,
    and clear their vision UNDER THEIR

    This makes the issue more a scientific
    issue of exact preception of the proven
    behavior of the eye -- rather than
    a medical issue in any sense of
    the word.

    That is why Fred Deakins was successful.

    He was smart enough to figure this situation
    out -- and do it himself.

    It does take great personal resolve to do
    it -- and I agree that you can NEVER
    prescribe "prevention" as described
    by Dr. Colgage and Fred Deakins.

    But this still makes true-prevention
    the second opinion -- and your
    belief is the majority opinion.


    otisbrown, Nov 24, 2005
  16. otisbrown

    Dick Adams Guest

    If an environment of close-up work makes for nearsighted
    eyes, it is quite amazing that none of the studies intended
    to demonstrate reduction of nearsightedness by fooling eyes
    into thinking the work is far away, have panned out, or
    achieved credibility.

    It is amazing to the point of flabbergasting that discussions
    here on that subject resolve to the question "is Otis nuts, or

    Is the conspirational view, which holds that minus lenses are
    good for you, behind this continual side-tracking?

    One only asks. One intends no disrespect.
    Dick Adams, Nov 24, 2005
  17. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Tough for one to take your question too seriously, Dick.

    This question has been beaten to death here for years. More work
    needs to be done to completely understand the mechanism(s) behind
    myopiagenesis. Much work IS ongoing. Go check out Adrian Glasser

    Meanwhile, there is overwhelming evidence that says that plus lenses,
    or bifocals, don't work as Odd Bird contends, except in kids with
    vergence disorders, and even then, only marginally.

    The self-evident reason that the discussions degrade is that the
    gentleman to whom you refer operates on faith, not science.

    As the chief astronomer from the Vatican recently said: he is a firm
    believer in Intelligent Design, but ... it ISN'T science. It can and
    should be taught in theology/religion/metaphysics classes, but NOT in
    science class.

    Same in this case. Theories that have been universally dismissed as
    invalid should either be re-tested by their proponents, or abandoned,
    but not put forth as valid in SCI.med.vision.

    Our little chatterbox can do neither of the two options above,
    choosing instead to rail at the top of his bronchiectasic lungs that
    the earth is flat....

    I refer you, again, to the "Net Loon Index:"


    I welcome further conversational degradation.
    Neil Brooks, Nov 24, 2005
  18. otisbrown

    Dick Adams Guest

    It was rhetorical.
    Just to understand the words -- like myopiagenisis.

    I'd like to know what it is, in the structure of the eye, that gets
    bent out of shape when we, as kids for the most part, push our
    eye-focusing mechanisms too hard. And, what makes us do
    Yeah, yeah. And more money is needed for research. I know
    that game.
    OK, but there will always be one more guru that I did not check
    out yet. How about the Chinese? There are billions of them, all
    get nearsighted by leaps and bounds, and with plenty of gurus and
    healers, and even scientists to study their eyes and habits. Even with
    their own web site about eyes.

    But OK, let's check out Adrian Glasser. We could see what he is
    up to, and write a brief synopis to be posted here.
    The plus lenses, as I have pointed out, are good from zapping ants
    on the sidewalk. The bifocals are hard for kids to manage, but they
    will usually work once you find out how to hold them (except when
    you steal them from real nearsighted old people).
    We could killfile him, or ignore him. Or maybe we could decode his
    messages with our Little Orphan Annie Secret Decoder Badges.
    It amounts to this: Anything that Otis has interpretably addressed has
    turned to shit and must be cleansed. That is tough to do, because
    almost no one has figured out what he is trying to talk about.
    I do wish that you would try to be more supportive.
    Dick Adams, Nov 24, 2005
  19. I do wish that you would try to be more supportive.

    The reason the support is lacking is very simple: over the time I've
    been browsing this group, Otis has forwarded his position as a
    recommendation to all readers. His evidence is a) very limited (one or
    two studies), b) very dubious (he insists on extending evidence
    gathered on primates to human application), and c) never changes. He
    always cites the same studies, as if they were a security blanket, in
    spite of the numerous requests for more empirical support. Also, he has
    conceded that his position is not medical, which begs the question of
    why he's in a 'med' newsgroup in the first place. And finally, he
    insists on using the same rhetoric time after time after time ("the
    dynamic behavior of the natural eye") etc.

    In short, he shows NO sign of being a reasonable, intelligent person
    with sincere goals on improving the base of knowledge in this area. He
    has a specific agenda, and does not discuss his position reasonably.

    This serves to antagonize people who genuinely want to provide working
    solutions for people's problems.

    At this point, it's gone on long enough that his credibility is
    shattered. His continued insistence on spouting the same diatribe has
    reduced his value in this group to that of the in-bred banjo player in
    the corner: perverse entertainment, and nothing more.

    Sad, really.

    The Central Scrutinizer, Nov 24, 2005
  20. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Dick, because of parrot-like comments like yours and Otis' continual
    attempts to lead all such discussion back to some outdated and overly
    simplistic view of near vs. far, plus vs. minus that we never get any
    further in this NG. We have attempted to do so in the past, but some
    of the participants cannot or will not get beyond the limitations of
    their own knowledge and understanding. Would this description fit you,
    by any chance?

    I mean no disrespect.

    Dr. Leukoma, Nov 24, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.