Scientific Analysis and Facts -- versus traditional methods -- for Neil

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by otisbrown, Dec 29, 2004.

  1. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest


    To: Neil Brooks

    Dear Neil,

    Subject: An honest discussion about what we actually measure
    concerning the natural eye's behavior, i.e., the difference
    between pure-science, and the necessity of quick-fixing the
    public in 15 minutes.

    Re: Since you mad it "personal" -- your "assumptions" about me.

    I have no idea who you are -- or what your interests might
    be. You certainly have every right to express your beliefs, on
    medical as well as scientific issues and research.

    My personal interests were to listen carefully to my friends
    who are optometrists and ophthalmologists -- as well as engineers
    and scientists like Dr. Stirling Colgate and Francis Young. In
    addition a furter to listen to a FULL PROFESSOR of OPTOMETRY who
    stated that for prevention to be effective, the use of the plus
    MUST START before the minus lens is used.

    Thus my judgment simply reflects the opinion of optometrists
    -- as developed over the last 50 years.

    Equally, I understand that true-prevention is difficult --
    but possible. The issue is whether the person himself wishes to
    work on "prevention". I suggest that that person be completely
    informed of the contradictory nature of these two concepts, and
    the associated method of preventing the development of a negative
    refractive state of the natural eye.

    To further reply:


    From: "Neil Brooks"

    Neil> So, Otis . . .

    Meil> Despite my best efforts at adding you and your pet topic to
    my kill-file in every conceivable permutation, here you are

    Otis> No one asked you to respond. Put you head back in the sand.
    You will be much happier if you do that. Further, no one
    asked you to act as the "defender of the faith". You seem
    to wish to act in that capacity. Even most of the ODs I
    talk to, acknowledge that the plus would be "wise" choice in
    the proper circumstances -- except for Jan, who insists that
    the concept of true-prevention and your right to a
    second-opinion, "...must be destroyed".

    Niel> A couple quick things:

    Niel> 1) I suppose the bar for "proof" should be lower for you
    than for the rest of the scientific community because you
    want it to be? Seems a little narcissistic and

    Otis> If you said MEDICAL community -- you would get no argument
    from me -- since MEDICAL people have their own "rules"
    however distorted. From a pure-scientific perspective, I
    suggest testing the natural eye first -- on and "input"
    versus "output" basis, where you work to determine the
    behavior of the natural eye -- as to whether the natural eye
    is passive or dynamic [i.e., refractive-state follows the e
    ^ ( -t/TAU ) function.]

    Otis> I would expect a engineering student to be able to review
    this type of experimental proof -- and understand the
    consequences of the proposed PREVENTIVE method for his
    long-term visual welfare. This suggests long-term
    intelligent association with that person, with
    responsibility transferred to that person -- ultimately.

    Neil> 2) In the wake of recent events (Aleve, Vioxx, Celebrex,
    etc.) I'm reminded that scientific hypotheses should be
    held to the highest of scrutiny before introduced as
    "safe," "accurate," "state-of-the-art," or "conventional

    Otis> In fact, these were MEDICAL hypotheses -- and the pressure
    was to show an immediate quick-fix. The FDA approved these
    things because of a desire to supply a quick-fix. But the
    issue was pure-medical.

    Meil> Reach for it, Mister. It's up there for you to surmount.

    Otis> Sorry, I don't have $10,000,000, nor can I fight Jan's
    statement that the scientific concept that the natural eye
    is dynamic, "...must be destroryed".

    Neil> Time and time again, you eagerly and blithely foist your
    theories on unsuspecting folks who stop by S.M.V.
    (, looking for help.

    Otis> Are acting to protect these people? Who appointed you their
    gardian? Remember a percentage of ODs and MDs support
    prevention with the plus -- as the second-opinion. Further
    I, like Professor T. Grosvenor only recommend that a person
    be INFORMED of this potential alternative -- when they are
    on the threshold. They can easily reject the use of the
    plus-for-prevention for "intellectual" reasons. If they
    choose the minus (and are entering a four year college) they
    should understand that their vision will go "down" at a rate
    of -1.3 diopters in four years.

    Neil> The general public must rely on the kindly doctors to alert
    them to your lack of credentials, potential for harm, and
    untested hypotheses.

    Otis> It is the "kindly doctors" who are the ones who have
    completely informed me of this diffifult situation. I seek
    to work WITH these "kindly doctors", like Raphaelson and
    Steve Leung on this type of "preventive" work.

    Otis> Since men with FULL CREDENTIALS support your right to an
    informed choice (indentified as the second-opinion) I think
    you are questioning THEIR credentials. Further, Niel, we
    don't know what YOUR credentials are.

    Neil> Look, Otis, I'll allow for the possibility that all of the
    eye doctors on this NG are avaricious, self-serving monsters

    Otis> Why don't you stop making assumptions about me? It would do
    better if you did that. Obviously, Jan's statement, that
    the concept that you be offered a "second opinion", "...must
    be destroyed" causes me to respond in a pure-scientific

    Otis> You think that Dr. Theorore Grosvenor a "monster" because
    he holds a second opinion as I do. I think not. In fact, I
    have friends in both optometry and ophthalmology. We might
    disagree on some points -- but that does not alter the

    Neil> ...who have a lock on a huge chunk of change that comes from
    doing things "their" way.

    Otis> You have a wonderful way of jumping to your own self-imposed
    conclusions -- based on your very narrow mind. The people
    who are familiar with the concept know that I am working for
    THEIR PERSONAL LONG-TERM visual welfare. You can draw your
    own conclusions. There is NO MONEY INVOLVED IN THIS WORK,
    other than the cost of the plus-lens to the person.

    Neil> They may be a member of the vast ocular conspiracy that
    defends its wealth by maintaining the status quo. All of
    this may be true (though I don't think it is).

    Otis> I have NEVER said, nor sugggested anything of this nature.
    It is an invention of your own mind. From my friendship
    with Dr. Raphaelson, I hold none of these opinions -- for
    obvious reasons.

    Neil> But you still come across as a petulant, Napoleonic idiot.

    Otis> It is always easy to call a person "names" rather than
    engaging in rational, logical, scientific analysis.

    Otis> However, you come across as an arrogant person -- who has an
    intellectual blind attitude towards respecting what
    objective science tells us about the proven behavior of the
    natural eye. Why not wake up and learn?

    Neil> The bar for proving your theories is the same as it is for
    all others.

    Otis> Yes, except that is Jan's statement that the concept of the
    dynamic eye, "...must be destroyed" prevents even the most
    basic analysis of the natural eye proven behavior. Does
    Jan's statement sound like the scientific approach of an
    open mind? Do all the ODs on this site agree with Jan's
    statement? I wonder?

    Neil> Go prove your theories (yes, the old fashioned way: proper
    testing, accurate data, peer-review)

    Otis> If you mean engineering and science -- then yes, we have
    gone through this process, as it concerns accurately
    representing the natural eye as a sophisticated

    Neil> ...and -- if there's a kernel of truth in what you spout --
    you'll be rich ...

    Otis> I don't care about money -- yet another false assumption you
    are making.

    Neil> ...and you'll be right up there with Bagolini, Heimholz,
    Donders, Schirmer, Robert A. Strabismus,

    Otis> Who the hell is "A. Strabismus"? Please explain, since you
    are presenting your ideas here.

    Neil> and all the other paragons whose names are memorialized in

    Otis> I do respect both Helmholtz and Donders. But there "factual
    base" was very limited for the 1870. This is the 21st
    centuary. Even Helmholtz would approve the development of
    new concepts that can enable effective prevention for those
    who are willing to learn from the scientific facts

    Neil> Until then, you're a troll . . . who creates risk for
    unsuspecting, often desperate, people seeking help.

    Otis> The person who is working to solve an engineering problem is
    neither "desparate", nor "unsuspecting". I expected to be
    dealing with an educated, intelligent person who reviews
    objective scientific facts BEFORE any preventive work is
    even started.

    Otis> I always ask a person to read my site. If they are
    intelligent about the matter -- then I would think there
    would be no problem. But you love to go on "defending the
    faith" with out much sense.

    Meil> "Engineer" in your signature expiates some of your guilt.

    Otis> Wow! I am accused of being "guilty" of telling scientific
    truth, before you understand anything! You are totallly
    full of yourself. We are talking about solveing a very
    difficult problem by prevention -- not about guilt.

    Neil> It does nothing to ameliorate the risk.

    Otis> Please, expand on your belief that use of the plus (for
    reading) has some risk. Even the ODs ackonwledge that there
    is no risk. They only state thier belief that the plus it
    is not "effective" for true-prevention". There is a
    profound difference here -- which you don't seem to

    Neil> Perhaps if your signature said, "I am not a doctor.

    Otis> I said "Engineer". If the person has some smarts and reads
    my site -- he will understand.

    Neil> (You should say) my theories are my own and are not shared
    by most in the medical community. Consult your doctor."

    Otis> And indeed I suggest that the doctor be Dr. T. Grosvernor,
    or Steve Leung who state that it would be wise to consider
    using the plus for prevention on the threshold of
    nearsightedness -- before a minus lens is applied.


    Neil Brooks
    otisbrown, Dec 29, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. otisbrown

    RM Guest

    This posting is an automatic reply to any newsgroup thread
    that is receiving comments from a person named "Otis", "Otis Brown",
    "" or "Otis, Engineer".

    Otis is not an expert in any field of vision. His medical and eyecare
    training is nil. He is a proponent of a myopia (i.e. nearsightedness)
    prevention technique that is unproven at best, and has in some aspects even
    been disproven by controlled scientific studies. He has posted and reposted
    his ideas approximately 1000 times over the last two years despite being
    repeatedly debunked by numerous doctor practitioners and vision scientists.

    No one means to suppress the opinions of others. This message is only meant
    to forewarn anyone who might misconstrue Otis as a trained eyecare expert.

    DO NOT REPLY TO HIS POSTINGS. Do not feed the troll!

    For anyone who is interested in understanding the current state of
    scientific/medical research on myopia prevention, I offer the following

    Please see the weekly posting "welcome to" which usually
    appears on Mondays for information on how to filter out his posts so that
    you may be able to participate in
    worthwhile discussions in this forum. Thank you for your cooperation and
    RM, Dec 30, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. otisbrown

    RM Guest

    You are not a scientist Otis, nor are you even objective in your thinking as
    a good engineer would be.

    It is the eye doctors here who understand the true dynamic nature of the
    eye. We understand the components that make up the eye and know which are
    dynamic and which are static. You on the other hand freely admit that you
    don't know the anatomy and physiology of the eye yet you continue to hand
    out advise as if you are some kind of expert. This is what Jan meant when
    he said your advice about prevention "must be destroyed". Unfortunately
    some innocent people who might read your remarks might actually be misled by
    your vociferous repetitive b_llshit.

    Answer these questions Otis, and quit dodging them. No name dropping
    either. No equations. Just try to explain.

    1. Please enlighten us on some of the "great deal of direct scientific
    experimental data" that shows that minus lenses are not safe. Those are
    your exact words-- tell us what the evidence is.

    2. What are the "facts" that prove that plus lens treatment prevents myopia
    in "the entire population of adolescent natural eyes" as you have stated
    previously. Those are your exact words-- tell us what the facts are.

    3. Please provide some of the "objective scientific facts that the natural
    eyes 'goes down' when you place a minus lens on it". Those are your exact
    words. Please
    show the data. And I don't mean your equation derived from a primate study
    where the animals were drastically overminused. Where is the proof that when
    you provide just enough minus lens power on the
    human eye to focus the image on the retina that it causes the eye to "go

    4. 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 equivalent to 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? Optometrists have these types of
    adolescent patients all the time.

    5. Why is it that young hyperopes, who very frequently do not wear their
    plus lens corrections, continue to maintain their hyperopia? They are in
    fact internally compensating for their hyperopia by accommodation. This is
    the same as being overminused 24/7. Why don't their eyes "go down" (your
    "scientific" terminology) and become more myopic (meaning less hyperopic)?
    Why is it that when you check them years later they are just as hyperopic as
    before, and when they approach age 40 they actually manifest even more
    hyperopia than before?

    If you can't carry out a discussion about the functioning of the human eye
    just go away somewhere else and design a new vacuum cleaner or something.
    RM, Dec 30, 2004
  4. otisbrown

    Dom Guest

    Looking back over the past few months, Otis seems to post on average
    around 3 times each day - and they're not all one-line posts, either -
    some are quite lengthy. Where does he find the time? Does he have a real
    job? Who is funding his activities??

    Dom, Dec 30, 2004
  5. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear RM,

    Subject: Pure science concerning the dynamic nature of the eye's

    Since you make remarks, to the effect, that "the concept
    of the dynamic behavior of the eye ...must be destroyed", I would
    have a hard time reviewing such scientific facts and analysis
    with you.

    The method of the minus lens whas put in place 400 years
    ago -- because it works instantly. We all undertand
    that truth. However "works instantly" does not
    translate into "justified by science".

    That is then nature of our argument -- which is
    an accurate assessment of the eye's behavior
    in terms of its refractive state (changing) in
    a negative direction when placed in a
    confined environment. It is true
    in pure-science.

    You can ignore it and deny it -- but
    Occum's theorm is that you
    use the simplest explanation,
    that corresponds to the
    experimental data.

    The simplest explanation is that the natural eye
    is a sophisticated system and when correctly
    tested, will always behave in this manner.

    You choose to deny these objective facts
    for "public consumption" then do so. By
    you are doing it on a "medical" basis -- and
    not a scientific basis.


    otisbrown, Dec 30, 2004
  6. otisbrown

    Dan Abel Guest

    One of the favorite techniques that Otis uses, is to claim that others
    have made certain arguments, and then refute those arguments. In truth,
    nobody made those arguments, and thus the refutation is worthless.

    Otis believes in the "concept of the dynamic behavior of the natural
    eye". Fine. Otis believes that therefore plus lens therapy will prevent
    myopia. Several people on this group have disagreed with that.
    Dan Abel, Dec 30, 2004
  7. otisbrown

    g.gatti Guest

    The doctors here - or learned men - are avoiding many questions.

    They should explain how the girl, my client, could possibly push
    forward the fine print from 5 to 10 cm qith very few effort, being -20D

    Try yourself to explain the things.
    g.gatti, Dec 30, 2004
  8. otisbrown

    Guest Guest

    And again Otis quotes incorrect.

    Free to Marcus Porcius Cato: ''Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

    I declare that Otis idea about preventing myopia in humans must be

    Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
    Guest, Dec 30, 2004
  9. otisbrown

    Guest Guest

    Show us YOUR experimental data in preventing myopia concerning the human
    I take it for granted you can't

    Free to Marcus Porcius Cato: ''Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

    I declare that Otis idea about preventing myopia in humans must be

    Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
    Guest, Dec 30, 2004
  10. otisbrown

    RM Guest

    Nobody said that Otis. Quit trying to put words in my mouth. It's your
    load-mouthed anti-minus lens diatribe that "must be destroyed" (using the
    unfortunate phrase chosen by a non-native English speaking optometrist).
    It's your unlearned proclamation that you know a better way when you can't
    prove or explain anything in detail about your "theories" that must be
    Just drop the old "400 years" stuff. It's as tired and old as that old "The
    Printer's Son" story that you used to tell. The biconcave lens does indeed
    work quite well for someone who is a myope, and there is nothing wrong about
    the fact that intelligent people discovered that 400 years ago! You don't
    realize it even today.
    Please list the truths that you speak of. Show us the scientific proofs.
    Oh-- there is none?
    Show us the experimental data. Prove it to us.
    Where are the objective facts? Don't you have them? List them for us.
    Give us the references. After all, you claim to have spent the last 30
    years reviewing the data. Oh, I guess you lost it.
    You need a psychiatric consult.
    RM, Dec 31, 2004
  11. otisbrown

    Dr Judy Guest

    snip the usual blah blah blah
    You have the signs wrong, the power of the eye increases in plus not minus
    refractive power in a closed environment. The "refractive error" increases
    in minus, but you don't want to use that term.
    Yes, this is description of emmetropization, but you don't believe in that
    term either.

    Nothing you have said answers any of the question RM posted, nor does any of
    it support your idea about using plus at near to reverse myopia.

    Dr Judy
    Dr Judy, Dec 31, 2004
  12. otisbrown

    nipidoc Guest


    I am still waiting for Dr. Herb Blacks list of references showing that
    plus lenses prevent the development of myopia. Any idea on when we can
    all expect that??

    nipidoc, Jan 1, 2005
  13. otisbrown

    g.gatti Guest

    Same things we can ask about MT and Jan and the other learned men we
    have here...
    g.gatti, Jan 1, 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.