Neil Brooks Respect for Memorial Day

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by otisbrown, May 26, 2007.

  1. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Subject: Neil Brooks has hit a new low.

    Let us get his name on his message.

    Does this man have ANY sense of personal honor?



    Dear Second-Opionon Friends,

    Subject: in memoriam

    I thought we should take a moment to honor those
    who gave their lives in service of tihs "nation."

    Along with that, I will spend this weekend reflecting
    on AND honoring the loss of my cognitive function.

    It gave its life in the DISSERVICE of eyesight
    and vision.

    Of all the tings I have "lost," it is my MIND that I
    miss the most.


    Neil Brooks


    It seems that it is Neil Brooks who is losing
    his mind.

    There are second-opinion doctors, like
    Jacob Liberman Ph.D. who suggest
    avoiding use of the minus -- and
    other "clearing" methods. That is a
    matter of the second-opinion, and that
    is fair.

    Launching personal attacks against
    people who hold a difference of opinion
    is not how you resolve scientific

    Otis S. Brown
    otisbrown, May 26, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Neil, you have a very nice personal web site:

    But you list no profession. What exactly do
    you do for a living, other than attacking
    an honest second-opinion on preventing
    entry into nearsightedness?

    And do you have an identical twin?

    otisbrown, May 26, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. otisbrown

    p.clarkii Guest

    WTF does your repetitive shameless promotion of your dumb unproven
    plus theory have to do with Memorial Day? you won't leave any stone
    unturned in your attempts to thrust your ideas on people will you? go
    play some solitaire and leave everyone in this newsgroup alone!
    p.clarkii, May 26, 2007
  4. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear PClar,

    I know that YOUR majority-opinion is that it is
    impossible to clear your vision -- by any method.

    Since you deny it, here are some more remarks about Dr. Liberman
    and his vision-clearing works WITH OTHER

    If a layman posted this -- I would have some
    doubt. But when a prevention-minded optometrist
    does it, then he has great credibilty.

    Some basic remarks:

    -1 diopter usually (on the average) is 20/70

    -2 diopters is therefore 20/140

    -3 diopters, 20/210

    -4 diopters, 20/280

    -5 diopters, 20/350

    -6 diopters, 20/420

    -7 diopters, 20/490

    -8 diopters, 20/560

    There can be considerable over-prescription
    in a person or child. I would NEVER accept
    MY OWN SNELLEN. I simply do not trust
    the measurement of a person who
    is arrogant, or does not care -- about
    my long-term distant vision.

    Thus, this vision-clearing as described
    by Dr. Liberman is profound. His checking
    of visual acuity is first-rate.

    Remember, 20/200 vision (or worse) is considered
    to be legal blindness -- again for comparison.

    But this "clearing" should be part of your understanding
    of these issues.

    Just remember that the majority-opinion doctor


    Here is the report by Dr. Liberman, a highly qualified optometrist,
    using these methods ON OTHER OPTOMETRISTS:


    Soo Tan 20/600

    6 hour = 20/225

    24 hour =20/25 (-3)

    Elvira Able 20/400

    6 hour = 20/100

    24 hour = 20/25 (-1)

    Jenny Livanos 20/225

    6 hour = 20/180

    24 hour = 20/25 (-1)

    Paul Dickson 20/160

    6 hour = 20/30

    24 hour = 20/20

    Report by Dr. Jacob Liberman

    The (-2) indicates that 2 letters were
    missed out of approximately six letters.

    So this is the Bates methods, and variations
    of it.

    These four optometrists are all listed in Dr. Liberman's book.

    So the issue is this. Who do you believe?

    The majority opinion that insists that the
    natural eye is not dynamic, or a
    second-opinion professional like
    Jacob Liberman.

    What this shows is the need for you to
    read your own Snellen and accept
    REASONABLE acuity -- before you
    get a -2 diotpers lens when your
    Snellen is 20/60 or better.

    What Dr. Liberman said in his book
    was to get rid of that minus as rapidly
    as possible.

    Yes you must pass the DMV level tests -- but
    the strong recommendation of a PROFESSIONAL
    is to NEVER wear a minus unless absolutly

    So there is a reasonable basis for prevention, developed
    by these successful prevention-minded professionals.



    otisbrown, May 26, 2007
  5. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    I've never HURT anybody as a result of my contributions to vision and
    eyesight newsgroups.

    You've hurt at least a dozen ... that I know of.

    Further, you've never helped anyone (how's your niece doing?).

    You've got quite a set of brass ba**s to insinuate that =I= have
    issues of honor.

    You have neither a conscience nor a soul.
    Neil Brooks, May 26, 2007
  6. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Thanks :)
    Most people could have figured that out from the link that I've posted
    a thousand times, posing questions to YOU that you will not answer. I
    guess you've finally figured out how to access the home page. Bully
    for you. Given another fifty years on this planet, you might show
    some progress on the vision science front, too!
    Fond of ASKING questions, but never willing to ANSWER them, eh?

    Doesn't fly.

    You start:

    Not so tough, really. Just give it a try.
    Neil Brooks, May 26, 2007
  7. otisbrown

    p.clarkii Guest


    Questions that Otis won't and can't answer:

    1. What is your professional training, or professional experience,
    that allows you to give people advise on how to manage their vision
    and eyecare problems? What Optometry, Ophthalmology, or Optics
    training and/or experience do you have?

    2. Why is it that many myopes who do not wear their minus lenses and
    are therefore walking around with net plus power on their eye 24/7, do
    not become less myopic. This is optically the same as wearing plus
    lenses all the time. Why is it that they don't revert to emmetropia?
    Why is it that they oftentimes become even more myopic? Your "theory"
    predicts the opposite!

    3. How come hyperopes (far-sighted people) who wear no correction do
    not become more myopic (=less hyperopic) over time? They are
    straining to see, in exactly the same way that others do who get very
    close their reading material. They do it 24/7. It's the same as
    wearing glasses that are overminused. Your theory predicts their
    refraction should change, but it doesn't. Actually, they manifest
    even more hyperopia around age 40.

    4. How come, in a study published by Goss et al. (Am Jour Optom
    Physiol Opt. Feb;61(2):85-93, 1984) children who were overminused on
    purpose did not become myopic any greater than children who wore their
    proper spectacle prescription? Your "theory" predicts the opposite!

    5. How come, when myopic patients were undercorrected so as to leave
    them slightly myopic even with their glasses on they continued to
    develop myopia, and actually at an accelerate rate (Chung K, Mohidin
    N, O'Leary DJ. Undercorrection of myopia enhances rather than inhibits
    myopia progression. Vision Res. 2002, 42: 2555-9.) Your "theory"
    predicts the opposite!

    6. How come the Hong Kong Progressive Lens Myopia Control Study
    (Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 2002;43:2852-2858)
    concluded that using bifocal lenses on children has no effect on
    myopia progression? Your "theory" predicts the opposite!
    p.clarkii, May 26, 2007
  8. otisbrown

    DoctorRick Guest

    So I just want to get this right.
    Neil Brooks says regarding Otis:

    So then you say:
    Wow. Its amazing what kind of trolls and idiots Otis attracts to this
    DoctorRick, May 26, 2007
  9. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Then you're nothing more than a heartless, soulless, insensitive jacka$
    .... just like ol' Uncle Otie here :)
    I'm not a Social Darwinist. I think those are the people who MOST
    deserve our protection and help.
    Not gonna' happen.

    Filter me, ignore me, or leave the group.

    Love, Neil
    Neil Brooks, May 26, 2007
  10. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    I can hardly wait.
    Here's hoping....
    I'll be right here ... trying to deal with the almost paralytic fear
    you've induced.
    I'm good with it.

    Love the hypocrisy, though, of you telling me to get a life, then
    promising to make yours in this way ;-)
    You and Otis both have a great deal of difficulty with terminology and
    definitions, don't you.
    Nah. Not me. I just need people to see through the kindly, avuncular
    Uncle Otie's sophistry and casuistry and realize what he truly is: a
    dangerous, uneducated, irrational, illogical fool.

    You'll be helping me. For that, I'm thankful.
    Neil Brooks, May 26, 2007
  11. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Then just do it ... but silently. You'll have to filter me on YOUR
    side though. It's an unmoderated group ... otherwise, there wouldn't
    BE an Otis Brown here.
    Again, Dave: call me after you've lived with double vision for a few
    months. Then, at least, I'd respect your opinion.

    People who've been active on this board for a while know exactly what
    I'm talking about. Otis helps nobody. He hurts people.

    That's not cool. YMMV.
    Neil Brooks, May 26, 2007
  12. otisbrown

    Dave Bell Guest

    Of course. I assumed you'd understand my meaning.
    Actually, right now, and for most of the past year, I'd be more than
    happy to experience some (binocular) double vision. At least there'd be
    *something* coming from my left eye. Double vision could be fixed with a
    My point is that it shouldn't be *your* responsibility to prevent such
    alleged harm. Even when Otis posts something as innocuous as a link to
    printable Snellen charts, you attack him, on a purely personal basis. It
    makes *you* look like a single-minded fool. From other statements you've
    made, I doubt you're a fool, but that's the way you come across.

    'Nuff said.
    Dave Bell, May 26, 2007
  13. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    The job needs doing. If you haven't figured out that I believe that,
    then you never will figure it out.

    People deserve to be protected from/enlightened about his lack of
    credentials, experience, accurate information, conscience, liability,
    and/or concern if/when he hurts them.

    I don't believe I jump on him for links to printable snellen charts.
    Others may. When he tries to offer /advice/, however, I try to be
    sure that people understand the nearly unfathomable limitations of
    using him as a source.

    Overwhelmingly, my attacks have NOT been personal. They are geared
    toward eliciting the fallacies behind his positions, the dishonesty in
    his information and use of statistics, and the outright lies (both of
    Omission and of COmission) that he spews forth with virtually
    every ... single ... post.

    It shouldn't require that somebody review six years of Otis's posting
    history to understand his pathology and avoid harm by trying his

    Incidentally, though I snipped it, your comment about double vision
    being readily fixed with prism shows ... again ... that you haven't
    lived with double vision. Whether or not a (KNOWN) side effect can be
    resolved with additional treatment is entirely irrelevant. It's a
    KNOWN RISK that Otis never discloses or discusses.

    Why? Because he's a pathological zealot with no concern for the harm
    he causes, and (as yet) no liability for the consequences of his

    Get the feeling I'm not very swayed here, Dave?
    Neil Brooks, May 26, 2007
  14. otisbrown

    Dave Bell Guest

    I stand corrected - it was not you, but p.clarkii.
    I can agree to disagree and leave it at that, but I do see the
    consistency of the attacks as personal.
    As you say, the group is unmoderated, and no-one can actually block
    another, either for posting unsupported (and allegedly dangerous)
    information, nor for being a gadfly. I'd just like to see the S/N improve.

    Dave Bell, May 26, 2007
  15. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    I don't know you, Dave--obviously. Not from s.m.v. or from anywhere
    else. But my story is an old one here: Otis makes kind, caring,
    helpful, compassionate doctors leave. Has for years.

    He is a Johnny One-Note, and even THAT single note is horribly

    He DOES hurt people. Who is going to provide the free information to
    worried people/parents who come here looking for advice?

    Will it be Otis?? No. He sits on the sideline and sets traps,
    spewing bull$hit to his heart's content. If somebody has a REAL eye
    problem, who will help them when Otis has run them all off?

    I started on this group about seven years ago. I've learned a lot in
    that time. Mostly, what I've learned is that--as long as Otis Brown
    contributes to this forum--the intellectual exchange of ideas
    concerning vision among educated people (whether or not they are
    vision professionals) is nearly non-existent. They tire of his
    crap ... and he never seems to tire of slinging it.

    He reminds me of what Stephen Colbert said about George W: He believes
    the same thing on Wednesday that he did on Monday ... no matter what
    happened on Tuesday.

    It gets old.

    Really old.

    For how many years do you expect people to try to maintain a
    =reasonable= dialog when he won't engage, is horribly wrong,
    dishonest, misleading, deceptive, evasive, accusatory, insulting,
    defamatory, and rude himself.

    At what point would you understand if the replies DID get personal?
    Ever think about coming at the problem from the other direction (ie,

    The only thing I've ever harmed around here is my own reputation.
    It's mine to harm. Otis has harmed the vision of innocent children
    (who do you think is "at the threshold?"), either posting here
    themselves or through their worried and desperate parents.

    That's reprehensible and unconscionable, and--as I say--I've connected
    with a dozen whom he's hurt ... and not a one who feels that anything
    productive came out of his advice.

    Think about it.
    Neil Brooks, May 26, 2007
  16. otisbrown

    retinula Guest

    retinula, May 27, 2007
  17. otisbrown

    retinula Guest

    some of us used to immediately post an "Otis disclaimer" following
    everything post he made. thats been done before but unfortunately it
    is not automatic, it requires that someone monitor the newsgroup
    constantly. what happens is otis goes away for awhile, and then after
    a week or so some distraught parent posts a question about their
    child's eye problem and then Otis responds by farting-out his lies,
    misstatements, and links to fringe-group alternative-medicine web
    sites that actually stand to harm the child (or at least not offer any
    real help).

    A fact is that Otis Brown is at least a moron, and is definitely a
    threat to the welfare of many peoples visual health. He is a
    veritable fountain of disinformation who presents himself as a helpful
    old benevolent "Santa Claus-like" figure and thus he can readily lead
    innocent soles off in the wrong direction.

    I don't know why you guys want tp defend poor-old mistreated Otis
    Brown. he is a proponent of an invalid incorrect vision improvement
    method that has been thoroughly proven wrong and can actually harm
    some people! The scientific and medical publications that prove what
    I am saying have been presented here ad nauseum. I know. I am a
    practicing optometrist who also has a Ph.D. in physiological optics.
    Otis Brown is a zealot on a mission to mislead people. so I would
    have to ask why you are trying so hard to defend him? perhaps you
    would also defend OJ Simpson at a retrial in his murder case?

    what would be best for SMV would be for Otis Brown to leave. then all
    the heated postings would stop and patients could actually get answers
    to questions that are useful.
    retinula, May 27, 2007
  18. otisbrown

    p.clarkii Guest

    Otis doesn't care. tried that been there. otis harms people. sure
    everyone could just sit here and say nothing while Otis fills
    unsuspecting niave posters with a bunch of BS and lies.

    how 'bout YOU go somewhere else also! you are a self-righteous a-
    hole. go away from this forum. no asked you how to handle our otis
    brown troll situation.
    p.clarkii, May 27, 2007
  19. otisbrown

    Guest Guest

    Again, who anointed you hall monitor for this NG?
    Guest, May 28, 2007
  20. otisbrown

    Dan Abel Guest

    Otis is a nice old man, but even people like myself, who are slow and no
    expert in the field, realize that Otis just makes stuff up and repeats
    it endlessly. He refuses to answer questions, except from people who
    have no knowledge or experience at all, and might swallow what he says.
    Perhaps you would do well to sit back and read what Otis posts and what
    the responses are. You would soon get an education.
    Dan Abel, May 29, 2007
    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.