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

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
Brooks.

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
action.

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:

www.chinamyopia.org

If you doubt this.

But Neil is bizarre in the extreme.

Otis

 

LOL!!!

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,

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?


Otis

 

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.

DrG

 

Where's the proof Cletis??

grant

 

DrG,

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
emails.

You are not involved in these
discusions.

Otis

 

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

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

Allen

 

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*!!. )

 

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.

 

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.

Otis

 

Sorry, but it wasn't me.

Continue to blather away. You are providing low-cost entertainment
for quite a few people ... you nut-job.

 

Message for Otis, his wife and nephew: BOO!

 

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.

OTis

 

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

www.chinamyopia.org

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
work.

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

1951

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

1952~1964.

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
physics).

1965~1974

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

1965-1974

Adjunct Professor( Physics and Astrophysics) NMIMT.

1974

Los Alamos National Laboratory, Theoretical Division.

1974

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.

 

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
CONTROL.

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.


Best,

Otis

 

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
what?".

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.

 

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:"

http://home.thegrid.net/~lllove/net-loon_index.html

I welcome further conversational degradation.

 

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
that.

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.

 

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.

BD

 

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.

DrG