Neil Brooks commentary

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by otisbrown, Jul 29, 2005.

  1. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Friends,

    Subject: Arguments concerning prevention -- as the
    "second-opinion".

    Re: Neil Brooks -- and his commentary opposed to
    the concept.

    Neil has chosen to send me some "messages".

    I would be nice if Neil had the courage to
    identify himself more completely so we
    could understand his point-of-view regarding
    the proven dynamic nature of the fundamental
    priamte eye.

    I will help him:

    NEIL BROOKS:

    CV: _________________

    Publications _________________

    Profession: Optometrist?

    Have some guts Neil -- explain yourself.

    I will post your emails to me so we can
    have a pleasant discussion about your
    scientific orentation and interests.

    If you have any qualities aa professional
    I expect a competent response. Try
    to keep it "clean" my freind -- make
    youself "look good".



    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Jul 29, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

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

    From: "Neil Brooks"

    <>

    Subject: Where'd you go??

    Neil> As always, I enjoy our pleasant conversation on the dynamic
    nature of your dementia....

    Neil> Oh, yeah: BOX CAMERA!

    +++++++++++++++++++++++

    Dear Neil,

    Subject: Optometrtic terminology

    Very few of the public know the term:

    +8.0 diopters OU.

    I conclude that you are either an optometrist, or
    have considerable experience in that area.

    I understand that you are defending your "professional position",
    and I guess I would do the same thing -- under similar
    circumstances.

    The reaction is normal -- and I expect it.

    Fortunately there are optometrists
    who are now taking that major
    step of placing their own
    children into a "plus" at
    the threshold -- so that
    THEY do not develop
    "stair-case" myopia -- like
    the general public does.

    It takes a "brave" OD to "buck"
    ths "system", and I deeply
    admire the courage of
    Steve Leung who offers this
    "option" to the public.

    www.chinamyopia.org

    The studies of Francis Young
    do indeed indicate that PREVENTION
    witht the plus is possible --
    as the "second opinion".

    Both studies demonstrated
    that the "single-minus" went
    "down" at -1/2 diopter per year.

    This suggests that the ONLY future
    (for prevention) must START before
    the person begins wearing that
    minus lens -- and it also suggest
    that he should be informed
    in a competent manner about
    this difficult choice.

    In effect, once a person begins
    wearing a minus (his eyes "adapt"
    to the minus) his refractive
    state can not be reversed.

    It is critical that he clearly understand
    this issue -- before he even begins
    wearing the minus -- because
    of the life-time effects and consequences
    for him.

    BOX CAMERA VS. DYNAMIC EYE
    CONCEPT

    Both of these statments describe
    a "paradigm", or conceptual
    idealization of the behavior
    of the natural eye.


    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Jul 29, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Neil Brooks Speaks:


    Not an optometrist--as I've told you on many occasions-
    -just a knowledgeable person.

    How did I GET to be so knowledgeable? By paying
    attention to the facts and discarding the fiction.

    The facts which, incidentally, all say your ill-
    conceived and foolish notions are wrong. What you
    spew is fiction.

    Repeating something ad nauseum DOESN'T make it true,
    dear boy. It only makes you sound clinically insane.

    +++++++++++++++++++++

    Neil,

    Why not "wise up" and make your posts here.

    Saves me the trouble doing it.

    In doing this work I have run into quite a
    few "interesting" people. The person
    who ranks up there with you is
    "Robin Parsons" -- who used to
    post on i-see.

    He was truly bizzare.

    Neil, please do not hide you "light" under
    a bushel basket. Do you posts here
    and let your wisdom shine forth.

    I'm listening.

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Jul 29, 2005
    #3
  4. otisbrown

    p.clarkii Guest

    optometrists are hiding secret knowledge to avoid
    great!
     
    p.clarkii, Jul 30, 2005
    #4
  5. otisbrown

    skyt Guest

    "So the kids in Singapore who can't afford glasses - they don't get
    nearsighted?"

    No offence, but just wondering where the Singapore bit came from...

    And nearsighted? (Out of topic, but...) Considering that my myopia went
    to -2.25 and -3.25 before I even realised that I had myopia (this was
    from 6/9 vision in the course of half a year)?

    On a pretty alarming note, though, I saw at this pharmacy the other day
    this product called "Vision Therapy" which quotes "no glasses, no
    prescription" as a way of correcting vision and "slowing myopia,
    astigmatism, blah blah blah". :|
     
    skyt, Jul 30, 2005
    #5
  6. otisbrown

    skyt Guest

    Yup I know that a lot of Singaporeans are myopic (being in Singapore
    myself), just didn't realise that your point was referring to that.
    (Slightly off topic, but in my school, if you see someone without
    glasses, it's more likely that he/she wears contacts than if he/she has
    perfect vision)

    Just wondering, does myopia/astigmatism get worse if you read a lot in
    places with dim lighting, or on moving cars? Or is this just an urban
    legend?

    At any rate, I don't quite see how wearing glasses can worsen myopia,
    anyway... I'm much more inclined to think that without glasses (when I
    first started to have myopia), I was straining my eyes so much that my
    myopia probably got worse after that...
     
    skyt, Jul 30, 2005
    #6
  7. otisbrown

    skyt Guest

    And just remembered that unless I'm severely mistaken, when I first
    started wearing glasses the optometrists actually used to undercorrect
    my myopia slightly. Apparently it didn't work, and I needed a new pair
    of glasses every year anyway as my myopia (and later on, astigmatism)
    worsened. Oh well. So obviously undercorrection doesn't quite work.
     
    skyt, Jul 30, 2005
    #7
  8. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Gee Wiz,

    I was looking for Neil Brooks to respond and explain his
    concept of the "peventive" second opinion.

    Let us understand your concept Neil!

    Are all doctors who develop alternative methods "demented".

    Was the doctor who insisted that other doctors WASH THEIR
    HANDS before delivering babys -- demented? He
    was described as such when he "pushed" the issue.

    Same as other pioneers in the field. Seems that all
    inovative concetps receive this treatment.

    The ODs posting here have no choice but to do what
    they do -- I acknowledge that. I does not make it
    "right" but it does make it understandable.

    Equally, there are gifted doctors, ophthalmologists
    and optometrist who would start the process of
    "change" at the threshold, i.e., Steve Leung OD

    www.chinamyopia.org

    Do you describe him also as "demented" -- or perhaps
    you they have not let you into the "day room" so you
    could explain.

    Best,

    Otis


    Enjoy,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Jul 30, 2005
    #8
  9. otisbrown

    A Lieberman Guest

    Dear Friends,

    Ignore Otis.....

    Thank you!

    Allen
     
    A Lieberman, Jul 30, 2005
    #9
  10. otisbrown

    p.clarkii Guest

    you are clearly more rational than Otis
     
    p.clarkii, Jul 31, 2005
    #10
  11. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Neil,

    I see your friends in white coats let you into the day room.

    Some people "countert" with logical arguments and
    experimental facts.

    I know that "prevention" is tough -- I never said anything
    different.

    Probably, the only person and OD can actually help
    (given the profound opposition) is his own children.

    I am pleased that we have had these "debates",
    and the ODs have excluded all direct experimental
    fact concerning the dynamic behavior of the natural (monkey-primate)
    eye. There "exclusionary" principle the the human eye behave
    "completely differently" makes my arguments easy.

    In the future, the effort will be for the person who wishes
    to AVOID a negative refractive state (on the threshold) to
    learn to take science, and facts seriously. But that
    issue is separate from OD-Medicine.

    Here is "Brooks" (perhaps Robin Parson) in all his splendor
    for your review.

    Best,

    Otis

    +++++++++++



    Your post:



    Quoth the dottering old fool (that's you, Otis. Bully
    for you!):
    Not necessarily, but YOU CERTAINLY ARE :)
     
    otisbrown, Jul 31, 2005
    #11
  12. otisbrown

    skyt Guest

    No, I don't necessarily assume that "straining" the eyes contributes to
    myopia. Just that it's something that I grew up with (urban legend,
    perhaps?) and that a lot of people assume around here. Hmm...

    My take is that I'd have gotten myopia eventually anyway, regardless of
    what happened.
     
    skyt, Jul 31, 2005
    #12
  13. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Mike,

    Subject: Francis Young and the Pullman Study


    Otis calls his imaginary effect "staircase myopia."

    Otis> Others have used the term, or some similar remark.

    He firmly believes that
    wearing glasses causes further myopia.

    Otis> You test the fundamental primate eye on an "input"
    versus "output", by using a minus lens, and the REFRACTIVE
    STATE of the test group moves in the direction of the applied
    minus lens. This is a natural process -- not a defective process.
    The natural eye is proven to be dynamic under direct test conditions.


    He provides no measurements or
    controlled studies to support his claim,

    Otis> Runing "bi-forcal" studies are VERY DIFFICULT. Francis
    Young (and Oakley) used a HIGH PLUS, on about 200 children.
    The result was that the "plus" group when down at zero diopters,
    and the "control" group (single minus) went "down" at
    a rate of -1/2 diopter per year -- over the two or more
    years of the study. If you don't like these results
    then just say the study is the "second opinion" -- but
    do not deny these scientific results -- ON HUMANS.


    Stacy> and we can't find any either.

    Otis> That is because your intense bias blinds you
    to objective, scientific facts.

    Since
    pediatricians and ophthalmologists disagree with him,

    Otis> Some do -- some do not. This is why there is
    always a "second opinion" -- whether you like it or not.


    he glorifies his point
    of view by calling it a "second opinion."

    Otis> You don't like the "second opinion" concept in
    medicine? That is precisely WHY there is a second
    opinion. No one requires that you "practice" the preventive
    second opinion. To a certain extent, that depends on
    the evaluation of the person who wishes to do the
    work to AVOID getting into nearsightedness in
    the first place.

    Otis> These issues are simply not resolved. Certainly
    prevention with the plus is difficult -- no one denys that.
    But, there is an indication (based on Francis Young's
    study) the prevention at the threshold would
    be possible if the plus were agressively used
    at that point. But that must be the decision of
    the person who chooses to work on prevention -- under
    his OWN control.

    Otis> Once you start wearing the minus -- there is no
    further possibility of successful prevention.

    Best,

    Otis

    cc: Steve Leung OD
     
    otisbrown, Aug 5, 2005
    #13
    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.