Respect for Opinions and Discussions -- Neil D. Brooks

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by otisbrown, Mar 8, 2007.

  1. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Subject: Honest discussions about objective

    Re: The blue-tint concept on Wildsoet's site.

    I will discuss issues of the natural eye's dynamic
    behavior as a scientific issue. (Not a medical issue.)

    I will review the Bates proposal for prevention, and
    other methods that OBJECT to the majority-opinion
    that a negative refractive STATE of the
    natural eye CAN NOT BE PREVENTED.

    I will not respond to people who are insulting to
    me -- and that specificallly is Neil D. Brooks.


    otisbrown, Mar 8, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Subject: Paradim "shift" as described by Thomas
    Kuhn in, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions".

    Wildsoet has "accidently" produced an accurate concept
    of all natural eyes with refractive STATE positive or negative
    DEPENDING on their average visual environment.

    If you fail to understand this concept, then you will
    fail to understand plus-prevention.

    Try to use your personal insight here.

    Dr. Stirling Colgate was a very bright 14 year-old kid.

    Fart brighter than many posting here. In the
    space of a few months he "figured it out" -- and
    did it right.

    If you wish SCIENTIFIC confirmation of the dynamic
    behavior of the NATURAL EYE, then look at
    that blue-tint animation.

    And maybe you are smart enough to figure it out.

    And maybe you are not.


    otisbrown, Mar 8, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Subject: The RESPONSIBILITY of the parent and child
    to consider the preventive alternative BEFORE THE MINUS.

    I think that an "open" discussion should be started with
    the parent and child before anything is done. This
    would take some time. I think that I would gladly
    pay for that type of consultation. But I would need
    the time to go do my own research. I do not
    appreciate people who think they are "Gods" and
    will not discuss alternatives with me.

    I do not consider this an insult to Judy, but
    just a discussion of your right to hear and understand
    alternatives OTHER than an over-prescribed minus.

    No offense is intended here -- just a difference
    of opinion on prevention verus that minus lens.


    Judy> When a child can't see the board, can't see the spin of a
    baseball, can't recognize faces across the room, can't
    follow the puck in a hockey game, can't see the music when
    playing in band, can't see the cellular details in the
    overhead slides in biology class, can't see the Mona Lisa
    smile illusion in art class, can't see the stars at night,
    can't identify birds on a field trip, what solution can you

    Judy (Majority-opinion optometrist)


    The issue is this. We induce a negative refractive STATE in
    our eyes by:

    1. Our own "bad habits", and the simple fact of 12 to 16 years in

    2. Our refractive STATE moves from "plus" to "minus" and we see
    some blur.

    3. Judy "jumps" on this slight blur in a panic, and
    over-prescribes -- not understanding the natural eye as the
    sophisticated system -- that it has always been.

    4. The child continues with his bad habits, and further
    "adaptation" develops at -1/2 diopter per year. Worse, the
    child wears the -1.5 diopter ALL THE TIME -- because no one
    told him NOT TO DO SO.

    5. This preempts ANY POSSIBLE DISCUSSION of plus-prevention. It also
    kills plus-prevention when it could have been

    6. I would like for Judy to just DISCUSS an alternative OTHER
    than a minus lens. The would mean RESPECTING the parent
    and child's intelligence in this matter. It could be accomplished
    in a matter of minutes, where Judy would say that
    a second-opinion does exist, and must be used now,
    at the 20/40 level. She could then send the parents
    to links like:

    and the parents and child could decide which "path" was
    better for the child.

    Clear vision with the plus, or start with the minus -- with
    the understanding that the plus could not be used
    once the minus is started.

    Why is there such a problem with that type of honest discussion?

    No one loses anything, it is just open honesty.


    otisbrown, Mar 8, 2007
  4. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    There is no problem with honesty. Why don't you try it sometime.
    Your inability to be honest undermines your integrity. How does it
    feel not to have any credibility?

    Dr. Leukoma, Mar 8, 2007
  5. otisbrown

    Dan Abel Guest

    Better yet, you could stop posting to the group, then you wouldn't get
    any abuse.
    Dan Abel, Mar 8, 2007
  6. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    That's nothing but a bald-faced lie (surprised? Hardly).

    You respond to me all ... the ... time -- only it's to insult, mock,
    libel, and abuse.

    [You also respond to YOURSELF more than anybody I've ever seen on the
    Internet, but I digress.....]

    What you DO NOT do is answer valid questions ... like the ones above.

    Come on. Take a chance. What's the worst that can happen.
    Neil Brooks, Mar 9, 2007
  7. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Here they are again, Uncle Otie. In case you can't find them....

    1. There seems to be a great deal of evidence that primates have
    widely differing visual systems. How is it that you feel so secure in
    saying that "all primate eyes" behave similarly ... in ANY regard?

    2. In these monkey studies that you reference, isn't it true that
    the SAME STUDIES showed that, with even BRIEF periods away from the
    minus lens, the myopia was prevented?

    3. If there was no medical indication that these monkeys needed
    corrective lenses at all, can you be sure that appropriate CORRECTION
    of somebody's REFRACTIVE ERROR will have similar results? If so, how?

    4. You continually claim that a minus lens causes something that
    you call "stair-case myopia." Presuming that you mean that it does
    this in humans, do you have any valid clinical evidence for this

    5. You have repeatedly claimed that the Oakley-Young study is
    "proof" of this "stair-case myopia" phenomenon, but Oakley-Young only
    establishes that-in some people-myopia can get worse over time. It
    doesn't even CLAIM that a minus lens CAUSES this. Please explain your

    6. Also-at least in part, based on the Oakley-Young study-you
    recommend that people use plus lenses to prevent myopia. Are you
    aware that the only people in the Oakley-Young study for whom plus
    lenses made ANY difference were those with diagnosed "near-point
    esophoria?" This is a convergence disorder. Do you have ANY EVIDENCE
    that the same result is likely with people who DO NOT HAVE this
    convergence disorder?

    7. You claim to have known Donald Rehm, the founder of the
    International Myopia Prevention Association, for some decades. I
    presume that you are familiar with his FDA petition. In it, Mr. Rehm

    " if we converge without accommodating the appropriate amount,
    or if we accommodate without converging the appropriate amount,
    problems can develop for this small percentage of children such as eye
    fatigue, double vision, or other types of fusion problems. That is,
    the two images can no longer be fused together without discomfort.
    Normal binocular vision is interfered with."

    Is there a valid reason why you have not attempted to make people
    aware of these SERIOUS risks of unprescribed plus lenses?

    8. You continually cite Fred Deakins as a (questionable) success
    story. Do you think it is honest NOT to mention that Mr. Deakins
    is--in truth--myopic, that he is trying to sell a $40.00 product, and
    that his "testimonial" is used as an inducement to buy this product?

    9. Do you have any economic interest in the product sold by Mr.

    10. You claimed that you were not selling a book--until, that is,
    I provided links to websites where it WAS being sold for $24.95 (with
    your home address as the "send check to" address). You then claimed
    that the entire book was available for free on the internet--until,
    that its--I pointed out that only approximately four of 14+ chapters
    were on the internet. Would you please clarify whether or not you have
    ever received money for a copy of your book, "How to avoid
    nearsightedness: A scientific study of the normal eye's behavior?" If
    so, please state how many copies you have sold, and when the last copy
    was sold. If not, please state how long it has been since you
    received any money for this book.

    11. Do you believe that it is dishonest NOT to mention that you
    have a commercial interest in inducing people to visit your website?

    12. Presuming that you understand the difference between
    accommodative spasm (pseudomyopia) and axial-length myopia, would you
    please provide credible proof that either a) pseudomyopia CAUSES
    axial-length myopia, or that b) relieving pseudomyopia REDUCES
    axial-length myopia

    13. You CONSTANTLY make reference to "Second Opinion"
    optometrists--presumably meaning those who share your views. Other
    than the now-infamous Steve Leung, are there ANY OTHER such "second
    opinion optometrists" in the ENTIRE WORLD? Does any of these people
    have any evidence to support the claims that you make? Would you
    please provide it?

    14. Mr. Steve Leung is also trying to sell a book. Do you have
    any economic interest in the book sold by Steve Leung? Do you think
    it is honest NOT to mention that Mr. Leung is--in truth--myopic, that
    he is trying to sell a book, and that the "testimonials" on his
    website, and your repeated referrals TO his website are used as
    inducements to sell both your and his book?

    15. Do you feel that it is HONEST NOT TO admit that--even though
    your niece, Joy, NEVER WORE MINUS LENSES, and DID USE PLUS LENSES, she
    is, at this time, a myope with a restricted driver's license?
    [ &joy.htm]

    16. I have posted, many times, links to the actual summaries of
    the myopia progression studies that you lie about
    []. Why do you
    tell people that they WILL SHIFT MYOPIC BY 1.3 DIOPTERS during the
    four years of college when the studies DO NOT SAY THAT AT ALL? Please
    explain your position and provide citations to the appropriate

    17. You enjoy citing the Francis Young 1969 Eskimo study, claiming
    that it is "proof that near work causes myopia." Are you aware of
    contemporary theory that states that, in fact, myopia in the Inuit
    population was a result of the introduction of a "Western" diet high
    in simple carbohydrates (junk food)?

    18. You enjoy using the term "closed-loop feedback system" to describe
    your concept of the "dynamic eye," yet (see question #3) the following
    a much BETTER representation of a closed-loop feedback system:

    Think of your home's oven as an analogy.

    You set the thermostat for 350 degrees (F).

    If the oven is already at 275F, then the thermostat will signal an
    INcrease in temperature.

    If the oven is already at 425F, then the thermostat will signal a
    DEcrease in temperature.

    IF, however, the oven is already at 350F -- the desired temperature
    then the thermostat will not signal any change.

    Please explain why your position is at variance with this analogy.

    19. You seem to stop by for the sole purpose of
    the waters--" adding posts designed only to harrass and annoy
    who, universally, do not agree with you.

    You then excerpt--often improperly and with incorrect attributions--
    these conversations on other sites, adding your little 'comments'
    WITHOUT the doctor having any ability to challenge what you say.

    Do you think this is intellectually honest?

    If you are interested in debate, exchange, argument, or discussion,
    wouldn't it be better to actually ANSWER questions directly?

    20. Presuming that your theories are based, at least in large
    part, on the emmetropization process, at what age does this stop in
    humans? In other words: you are recommending a particular therapy to
    halt myopia progression that--based on your arguments--should be
    effective at REVERSING it. If so, then why are all of its advocates
    most of its known 'test subjects') myopic?

    This seems to be a bit of a paradox, no?
    Neil Brooks, Mar 9, 2007
  8. You forgot palming, hyperbaric chambers and coffee enemas...
    William Stacy, Mar 9, 2007
  9. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    .... for the record ... these last three should NOT be attempted

    'nuf said.
    Neil Brooks, Mar 9, 2007
  10. Although there may be one for whom I would be tempted to Rx a sleeping
    draught and a drastic purgative simultaneously.


    .... It is better to be looked over than overlooked.
    Nicolaas Hawkins, Mar 9, 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.