Keith B.'s response to Neil Brooks' Note

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.


Otis

_______________________


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
is.

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
judgment.

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".

Otis

__________________

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

From: Keith B.

Subject: Neil Brooks

Uncle Otie,

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

Keith

************************

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
reason.

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
don't.

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
people.

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.

Sincerely,

Keith

____________________________


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.

 

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.

 

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:

www.chinamyopia.org


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
YOU WITH PREVENTION -- IF THIS PERSON IS TYPICAL
OF THE INTELECT OF THE PLUBLIC MIND.

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
newsgroup.

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
right.

Love and kisses....

 

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
vision.

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
WILL EVER BE RESOLVED.

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 "sci.med.vision" news group.
They deserve the likes of River -- tragic to say so.


COMMENTARY:


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.

Otie

_____________

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.

Keith


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
this.

[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 --
and
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
newsgroup).

[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
NECESSARY.

[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
ignorance.

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
public.

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

Otie

 

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 i-see.org "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?

 

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
reading,

www.chinamyopia.org

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.

Best,

Otis