Keith B.'s response to Neil Brooks' Note

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by otisbrown, Oct 6, 2005.

  1. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Second-opinion friends,

    Neil Brooks has taken it on himself to contact my nephew,
    Keith B.,

    I will post Keith's response for your interest.

    Keith was stated to be "nearsighed" at age 13. I presented
    the results of the scientific Oakley-Young study, and suggested
    that "prevention" is the second-opinion, but to be effective
    the person himself must take control -- and always keep
    his distant vision clear. At last check Keith
    stated that his vision was better-than 20/20.

    Again, is was the scientific proof of the Oakley-Young study
    that suggests true-prevention at the threshold, as Keith has done
    it. This indeed suggests the "either-or" choice a person must
    make about the "preventive" use of the plus. Once you begin
    wearing the minus -- the plus can no longer be used for
    prevention. I am certain that Keith took this scientific study
    very seriously -- as I do.



    To: "Keith

    From: Otis

    Subject: Neil Brooks

    Dear Keith,

    Neil Books is strange. In many ways the OD is "stuck" in the
    way that Raphaelson was "stuck" with "The Printer's Son".

    With our bad habits, "long hours with nose-on-book" we
    produce a situation were are refractive state moves from a postive
    value, to a negative value -- and then we have "burr at distance".

    If we "wake up" and personally decide to do something about
    it -- the it is possible to avoid it. But this choice and action
    depend COMPLETELY on the person who has the "smarts" to implement

    But that is the real issue. How much responsibility and
    "control" must be transferred to the person himself to make
    true-prevention "work".

    It is very clear now, that almost all responsibility must be
    transferred. As a minimum, this is the "second opinion" even if
    YOU must do all the work, and verify that your distant vision
    always passes the DMV required in your state.

    The "preventive" future must be a matter of your choice in
    the matter.

    Neil seems to want to act as the "defender of the faith" or
    something like that. But even this must be a matter of your

    I remeber doing "dumb things" with my eyes as a young child.
    I was told by the "majority opinion" that this has no effect on
    the refractive state of the primate eye. From Francis Young's
    work, it is very clear that BOTH enviroment (average) AND the
    minus lens "affect" the refractive state of the primate eye. If
    we value science, then we should pay more attention to the
    scientific facts, and less attention to the "majority opinion".



    ----- Original Message -----

    From: Keith B.

    Subject: Neil Brooks

    Uncle Otie,

    Here's my reply to a guy who seems curious about something.



    Yes, he's fine.

    First, he is VERY passionate about a person's ability to
    affect the focal status of his or her eyes.

    Second, and what I think tends to come out is that he often
    times enjoys annoying people for what he considers the right

    I think also his science-oriented brain has a hard time
    dealing with the reality that humans tend not to do what is good
    for them with preventive measures, even though he knows people

    I've worked in sports medicine, sports performance, health
    and fitness and share his frustrations with average human
    tendencies. Look at the statistics of obesity in this country
    contrary to all of our knowledge and resources!

    Make no mistake, I've wondered at times if it was healthy
    just how far he'll go to make his point or agitate a group of

    I might even think he was nuts except for the fact that I've
    benefited from his "preaching" of prevention and preservation of
    my far vision.

    I am completely confident, and have proven it to myself over
    25 years now, that I can positively (pun or no pun) affect my
    vision with the plus lens - or negatively affect it with no plus.

    He does send me a fairly balanced view of his and others'
    criticisms of him so I know he's basically against the whole
    vision industry.

    That doesn't make him wrong.

    I'm very knowledgeable in most other workings of the human
    body and although I could not very well explain his ideas, his
    ideas are much more compatible with how all other parts of the
    body work than the ideas of those who oppose him.

    The human body, including the brain and nervous system, is
    very dynamic, going in both a positive or negative direction
    depending on the stimulus presented, how far the individual is
    from the optimal goal and most critically, how motivated the
    person is to reach the goal.




    Email sent by Neil Brooks to my nephew Keith B.

    I've watched your uncle's posts for several years.
    vociferously questioning his grounding in reality.
    otisbrown, Oct 6, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Friend,

    Most ODs recognize the need for change -- and respect a person's right
    to use a method if it meets there personal needs.

    What matters is not me, or for that matter Neil Brooks, but rather what
    my nephew learned from evaluating the objective scientific facts as the
    concern the proven dynamic behavior of the natural eye.

    The practical implementation was indeed Keith's work, and I believe
    that is far more difficult that the analytical work that I provided.

    Neil is slipping into a confused haze of his own making. Here is yet
    another email from him.

    Neil is truly a rabid nut.


    Keith is nothing more than another anecdotal example that you cite.

    Otis> That is interesting -- before you insisted that he did not
    "exist". Why not stick with that?

    Nothing more.

    I wrote to him because I wanted to know if his uncle was
    clinically insane.

    No, Neil, you wrote to him because you are crazy. Very soon they will
    not let you into the "day room".

    If you don't want people writing to these anecdotal references
    that you consistently make, you should refrain from posting their
    e-mail addresses so freely.

    Otis> His email was not made available to you, Neil. But I have an
    idea were you got it.
    otisbrown, Oct 6, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Friends,

    The objective fact I present are clear. You should review them.

    There are prevention minded optometrists who will help you
    "protect" your child's distant vision -- if you wish and request it.

    If you do not want pevention (under OD) control -- that is fine
    with me. You have a choice -- and that is what I present. See:

    I have concluded that Neil is insane.

    Here is another example of that insanity -- for your interest.

    I can now understand why NO OPTOMETRIST WILL HELP

    I will publish my legal disclaimer just to be clear.

    I personally wish I had had the kind of "support" that I gave
    to Keith. The lord know he would not have gotten help
    from most people.


    I just saw this. I'm deeply hurt.

    For the record: I only said I'd stop responding to you on the

    If I can find ANY evidence that you have committed a crime, or
    can be sued civilly for your actions, I'll find it, and send it
    to the appropriate authorities.

    You hurt people, yet you deny it, show no remorse, and are too
    obsessed to give a damn. That makes YOU the (narcissistic) son
    of a bitch.

    You're goin' down, Otis S. Brown. You hurt people and that's not

    Love and kisses....
    otisbrown, Oct 6, 2005
  4. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Mr. N. Brooks claims that the "preventive"
    plus will "hurt your eyes". For that reason he contacted my
    nephew to inform his that a "plus" hurts his eyes. In fact my
    nephew used the plus to "clear" his distant vision (as required)
    through college. For you interest, here is the discussion.


    Dear Keith,

    Subject: Thinking for yourself. Acting for yourself.

    Re: Fundamental science -- not medicine.

    I think you did an excellent job protecting your distant

    You must look at the "quality" of the people who have done
    this -- and I mean specifically Stirling Colgate who reached the
    same conclusion that you did.

    Clearly Stirling did not earn a living "selling" the minus
    lens -- and could not care less about it. He wrote up his "story"
    at the request of his wife Rosie to help his own children
    understand and avoid this "undesired" situation.

    You are right about "medicine". It sinks to the lowest
    common denominator. By that I mean that whatever is done -- must
    produce and OBVIOUS result that is "seen" by the patient. Most
    people are "superficial", and so this "immediate" result meets all
    medical needs.

    Almost NO ONE will listen to any "medical" person who
    attempts to go beyond this point. The remarks of River is
    sufficient to shut down ANY MD or OD who attempts to go beyond the
    "superficial" demand of the public. This was the real "message"
    of Dr. Raphaelson -- and I learned it well.

    In the sense of pure science -- most of these issues are
    resolved. In the sence of "medicine", i.e., the superficial
    public's demand for the "obvious" solution -- NONE OF THESE ISSUES

    You did it "right". You heard this "second opinion",
    monitored your distant vision -- saw it as blurry -- and realized
    you had to "do it youself".

    I think that ONLY the person who has confidence in himself
    can ever implement true-prevention. And I mean:

    1. You physically saw your distant vision "blurry".

    2. You worked intensively with the plus and saw your vision clear
    to pass the DMV.

    3. You realized that you had to "repeat" this process as long as
    you were in a "reading" environment.

    That seems to be an "impossible" concept for most. In fact
    most people simply will not look at an eye-chart. They seem to
    want EXCLUSIVELY an OD to make all measurements -- like they are
    physically incompetent or something.

    Once you have personally cleared your vision, it will be
    impossible for an idiot like River to come along and tell you it
    is "impossible" or that you are DECEIVING YOUSELF in some way!

    This is why I state that "medicine" can never accomplish this
    task. This should not "insult" medicine -- but tragically they
    take it that way. They simply can never deliever "prevention"
    when you must see the results youself.

    You can delete the rest of this -- but I have added some
    commentary. (I also give up on the "" news group.
    They deserve the likes of River -- tragic to say so.


    Subject: Re: Brooks again

    Dear Keith,

    You are right. Brooks is a psychopath. I plan no further
    communications with him.

    On the subject of being "forceful" in advocacy for
    "prevention" I recognized that Dr. Raphaelson was right. You can
    NEVER help a person -- until the person chooses to help himself.

    I would have liked to have "forceful" help in avoiding this
    situation. (But I understand "myself" and my own "failings" on
    this issue.)

    My purpose was to make this issue clear -- and "empower" you
    to think for yourself.

    The future is yours, and that is the most important part of
    these discussions.



    Subject: Brooks again

    Uncle Otie,

    Just FYI and I don't plan to communicate with Brooks again. A
    note for you, I am actually happy to discuss plus lens use with
    open minds but not this guy.


    Otis> I learned a long ago you can not "save" the great mass
    of humanity. You can only "save" youself


    River> I see it's a familial thing then, Keith.

    Keith> Sure, why not.

    River> As somebody who works, and is educated, in the field you say
    you are, I'm surprised by how quickly you establish cause
    and effect.

    Keith> Quickly? No. It took probably two years at least for me
    to turn faith (in this case in my uncle's ideas)
    into a measurable cause and effect. Over the years, my
    observations of my behavior and vision status, both
    objective and subjective, have served to strengthen my
    belief in his ideas.

    [Comment: Brilliant. Obviously this "Brooks" will not hear
    anything you say. You won -- and that is all that
    matters. OSB]

    River> I do situps every day. I don't have cancer. Situps, then,
    are preventing my cancer.

    [Comment: What a bone-head. OSB]

    Keith> Quite possibly sit ups do help to prevent cancer because it
    is physical activity but no one knows for sure. There are
    credible theories that cancer has a greater environmental
    effect (carcinogens are just one known cause) than genetic
    effect but that's not the way medicine chooses to proceed
    with prevention. Many times cause and effect through
    longitudinal studies require 20+ years to become valid.
    Framingham studies are about the only body studies like

    [Comment: I would add that the people working in "high noise"
    enviroments used to think that 120 dB noise produced no
    problems -- until they went stone-deaf 20 years later.
    It take real personal intelligence to understand
    "delayed effects" -- and Brooks is as superfical as they
    come. OSB]

    River> The problem is that your example is unscientific. Touting
    your uncle's intervention is a logical fallacy (post hoc,
    ergo propter hoc). ... As it is, nobody can say with
    certainty what would have happened if you'd only worn a
    prescribed minus. You may be completely confident, but you
    are equally likely to be completely wrong.

    [Comment: Scientific subject recommended to YOUR intelligence.
    It is clear that if you follow one path
    (over-prescription of a minus lens) you can not follow
    the other (clear distant vision when necessary -- keep
    distant vision clear for life.) The OD can argue that
    they are driven to do only what the "superfical" public
    will allow, and expects. If they stated that truth --
    I COULD AGREE WITH THEM. But I hope both of us are
    more intelligent than that. But River is wrong on two
    points. The Oakley-Young study which showed that the
    "plus" did not go "down", and the direct-primate
    studies, which leave no doubt about the behavior of the
    eye. The scientific facts can only point you in the
    right direction. The actual implementaion MUST BE your
    on interaction ane preception of those same scientific
    facts. OSB]

    Keith> First, I'm not touting his intervention. You asked and I
    simply stated my belief based on my own experience. Could
    I be wrong? Sure, but I do know that wearing the plus will
    make my distance vision clearer and not wearing them shows
    a gradual decrease in distant vision and that "phenomenon"
    happens over weeks or months. How do I know this? I
    measure it.

    [Comment: That is the absolute and only way to do scientific (not
    medical work). Accurate objective measurements are the
    ONLY way to do good science. OSB]

    Keith> How do I know that my measures are accurate? I simply read
    an eye chart honestly.

    [Comment: Absolutly -- there is no other way. OSB]

    Keith> One aspect of sports medicine relative to this is with ACL
    knee surgeries in the mid 80s. ACL rehab protocols were
    quite slow and less predictable. The reason the protocols
    improved is that patients did NOT do what the docs told
    them to, they took off post-op braces quicker and started
    doing more daily activities sooner than they were supposed
    to. The ones who did things they were NOT supposed to get
    better, and the orthopedic docs and physical therapists
    took note and changed protocols.

    [Comment: They escaped the medical "mind set". In looking at
    your own eye chart -- and verifing results, you
    accomplished the same result. In the same breath I will
    say you saved a hell of a lot of money ($300 for glasses
    every two years) and your long-term eye sight. I know
    you were probably at 20/40 and 20/50 at times. But by
    working at it you are now at 20/20. Had you not been
    "empowered" the Oakley-Young study says you would be
    about -3 diopter or deeper, and at that point is would
    be impossible to get out of it. An ounce of prevention
    -- saves a pound of "cure". At -3 diopter a "cure" is
    not possible. The situation is permanent.

    River> Citing obesity, and other health-related issues as you have,
    you are relying upon controlled studies, properly
    performed, using the scientific method.

    [Comment: No I am separating "medical" issues from
    pure-scientific issues. If a kid is "stuffing" himself
    with food then it becomes (Excess calories in = Obese
    kid out). The person in "control" is NOT THE MEDICAL
    PERSON. He has no control at all. The same is true for
    the kid with his nose on the book for long hours -- and
    develops -1 diopter myopia. The person "in control" is
    the kid -- and not the "medical doctor". You must
    "change" the person's attitude who has the potential to
    "control" this situation himself -- by moving the "near"
    environment out to "infinity" with the plus. No one can
    EVER prescribe this -- only the intelligent "kid" can
    control this. The scientist can figure this out. The
    "superfical" public will RUN to an OD for a minus-lens
    "solution". River can not understand this rather
    obvious issue. Tragic indeed. OSB]

    Keith> Maybe or not and does the information affect individual
    behavior? Caffeine and alcohol were once said to have
    negative health effects but now they are thought to be at
    least harmless if not have (minimal) positive antioxidant
    properties. How many billions of dollars are spent each
    year on health and fitness when the vast majority of people
    would need none of this information? They simply need to
    get out and walk more and eat less.

    Otis> While the plus requires considerable "body" intelligence, it
    also is on the order of "brushing your teeth", or other
    "preventive" measures. How anyone can make this concept
    "difficult" is beyond me. I do understand that initially
    the concept of "prevention" sounds strange -- until you get
    used to it. OSB]

    River> What you've succumbed to, and what bothers /true/
    scientists, is the continued, vociferous assertion of
    logical fallacies as truth.

    [Comment: You have to wonder about Brooks "true" scientist. Is
    he the man who can "crank" a strong minus lens and put
    it on a kid -- and impress them in 15 minutes. Is that
    it? In this sweeping statement you must sweep /true/
    scientists off the table -- like Stirling Colgate and
    many others. You must also "pretend" that a proceedure
    that works instantly, and impresses the superfical must
    be the ONLY true science. This is yet another falicy of
    this man. A lesson to be learned indeed. OSB]

    Keith> Succumbed to? No, I've made a choice based on my
    observations. A case study of one without referees, biases
    or not.

    [Comment: What you verified was the tip of the iceburg in
    science. A great many things in science point to this
    result -- but you only believe it when you see it for
    yourself. OSB]

    Keith> True, you see logical fallacies. There have been many
    great scientists who have been run out of town for strong
    disagreements with the norm. The world was once flat, time
    was absolute, cooperation had nothing to do with
    competition, etcetera.

    [Comment: Brooks is "floating" in his own sea of logical fallicies --
    he is totally blind to almost all of them. But you need
    to protect your own distant vision -- because no one
    else has any interest in it -- but you. OSB]

    Keith> Do I know what I know? Yes. Do you know what you know?
    Yes. Individual perception is reality. Measurable
    perception provides for strong belief.

    [Comment: When you verify your vision "clearing" on your eye
    chart -- that is indeed and OBJECTIVE measurement. You
    are not going to "cheat" yourself. When you tell others
    -- then your objective measurement always becomes a
    "subjective" measurement. In engineering and science,
    we simply do not use the word "subjective". OSB]

    Brook> The doctors (and I) are trying diligently to get him to stop
    practicing bad medicine with neither credentials nor
    expertise. He /is/ hurting people.

    [Comment: Here again Brooks jumps to a conclusion. He should say
    "majority opinion doctors". The "majority opinion"
    doctors do in fact support the concept of prevention at
    the threshold -- when it must be used to be effective.
    There is no resolution to this issue. OSB]

    [Comment: I have been VERY SPECIFIC about this. I do not
    "practice" medicine. Indeed, the "medical" person has
    exactly the problem I stated. The person himself must
    be "empowered" to take control -- or nothing effective
    can happen. Given the Oakley-Young study, the results
    of NOT PREVENTING IT, is that your vision goes down by
    an AVERAGE of -1/2 diopter per year. And Brooks is
    suggesting that weaing a minus lens IS NOT HURTING
    PEOPLE. Brooks has a strange "word" for the presumed
    "safety" of that minus lens. If you had not used the
    plus as you did I have no doubt what would have happened
    to your distant vision -- permanently. OSB]

    Keith> Medicine has to do with relying on others to describe
    health status. Scientific methodology has to do with
    finding out for oneself. My uncle draws a distinct line to
    not practicing medicine. I don't personally claim strict
    scientific study but rather measurable cause and effect.

    [Comment: Self-preservation is a strong motivation. Science can
    only guide you. Untimately the person who sees the
    results under HIS control it the person who BELIEVES in
    the results. OSB]

    River> The evidence is against your uncle (let me know if you have
    interest in reviewing it or, again, participate on the

    [Comment: I would suggest -- don't bother. You have alread
    verified the behavior of the natural eye -- by clearing
    your distant vision in the manner that Stirling Colgate
    did it. Why bother with anyone else -- particularly
    psycho-idiots like Brooks ? OSB

    River> I've challenged him on countless occasions to prove his
    hypothesis using more than chicken studies and anecdotes.
    He can't.

    [Comment: The Francis Young study is very clear as to the effect
    that the minus lens has on the fundamental eye. The ODs
    come up ENDLESS excuses to IGNORE this result. That is
    why the DIRECT primate studies are so important. River
    says you must IGNORE this scientific research. I
    suggest that you ignore Brooks . OSB]

    Keith> True - chickens and primates with some individual case
    studies. I have no interest.

    River> These are not the hallmarks of a scientific mind. These are
    the delusions of a frustrated would-be pilot.

    [Comment: It depends on who is calling who "delusional". The
    science is excellent -- and you have see the results
    yourself. Who "needs" Brooks? OSB]

    Keith> That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. If you are
    concerned for my uncle's health then I thank you for your
    concern. If you are looking for someone to provide any
    further information or discussion then I am not the person
    you are looking for and NO FURTHER COMMUNICATION IS

    [Comment: Well said. You can only be concerned with yourself and
    the people you love. OSB]

    Keith> I don't participate in idea exchange regarding the plus
    lens and don't plan to. My interests lie elsewhere. If you
    can find a "sure thing" with no side effects to get people
    to be more active and eat less then please let me know.
    Statistically people in the U.S. are 60% overweight and
    about 30% clinically obese. I hope for your sake you
    maintain good health practices because from my point of
    view, diabetes in the next 10-20 years will make discussion
    on eye refractive status seem novel.

    [Comment: A person in "medicine" must protect himself. I
    understand THAT issue completely. In fact, given this
    bizzare River , it is clear that ANY OD OR MD who would
    even ATTEMPT a conversation with you concerning
    prevention-with-plus would come under severe threat by
    River. Further, given the superfical "mind" of the
    public, I a certain that ANY OD who attempted
    "prevention" would be driven out of the profession --
    pronto. I suggest the following:

    1. The public is profoundly ignorant and none-motivated.

    2. Very few people put ANY VALUE on their distant vision.

    3. The minus is instantly effective. On the threshold everyone
    "loves" the minus -- until they get stair-case myopia. Only
    THEN do they "question", and by THEN it is to late.

    4. Prevention requires an "appreciation" of these political
    problems -- and explains why no OD can help you with
    prevention and why you have no choice but to take control
    and "do it youself under a scientific understanding of the
    eye's behavior.

    Because the OD wishes to DENY objective facts (primate
    studies) he must necessarily insist that "environment has no
    effect on the eye's refractive state. Thus he can not even
    DISCUSS forcing the child to keep his nose off the book. The
    result is that the parents have NO KNOWLEDGE of tht long-term
    effect that action of the child will have on his distant vision.
    Thus the parents (in ignorance) let the child do this in total

    Thus you have the "ignorant" public (the child) being
    permitted to do this to his eyes, and the ODs quick-fixing the
    child after the child's refractive state moves from plus to minus.

    This suggests that the ignorance of the public "drives" this
    situation, and the OD is only SLIGHTLY less ignorant than the

    I am certain you made an intelligent choice in the matter of
    keeping your distant vision clear for life.

    otisbrown, Oct 21, 2005
  5. otisbrown

    p.clarkii Guest

    who cares Otis?
    the fact is your "second opinion" is actually the "disproven opinion".
    if you want to support plus lens prevention then do in in your ouwn
    yahoo "blind faith" forum, but not in any newsgroup with
    "science" and "medicine" in the name.
    you are off topic again otis
    why not just go away and stay away?
    p.clarkii, Oct 21, 2005
  6. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear P.Clark,

    Subject: Optometrist who DO CARE.

    Since you have chosen to post on these remarks
    by my netphew, I will reapond.

    Fortunately I have had the pleasure of meeting
    some open-minded ophthalmologists who do care
    about a person's ability to keep his distant
    vision clear -- for life.

    To further reply:

    Otis> You obviously do not care about
    a person's long term visual welfare, and
    I do. At least about an honest informed
    choice at the threshold. I would suggest

    About an optometrist who DOES CARE as I DO.

    Otis> FALSE on a scientific level. But you don't understand
    that issue at all.

    Otis> No, I have strong faith in explict, objective,
    scientific experiments that prove that the natural
    eye is a sophisticated dynamic system -- that
    changes its refractive state as the visual-environment
    is change. I have faith in your ignorance of
    this scientific issue.

    but not in any newsgroup with

    Otis> I agree that a pure scientific, analytic
    approach is not a "medical" approach. Perhaps
    that explains why so many kids develop
    stair-case myopia from an over-prescribed minus.

    Otis> I notice that you posted on this thread -- had
    you not, you would not have gotten this response.


    otisbrown, Oct 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.