++++++++ Short poem for Neil Brooks and our Asian Friend

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by otisbrown, Jun 9, 2005.

  1. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Second-opinion friends,

    Subject: Protecting your right of choice in the matter
    of nearsighedness prevention.

    I have met some fine ODs -- of both the "majority opinion"
    persuasion, and the "minority opinion".

    Where there was a disagreement about the natural eye's
    behavior the issue was resolved by reviewing the direct
    experimental data of primates. (These type of "proving"
    experiments CAN NOT BE PERFORMED ON HUMANS. Apparently
    Neil does not realize this. You are supposed to
    think and analyize. It is all that difficult?

    It is very easy to quick-fix a natural eye with a negaitve
    lens -- and impress the person concerned with it.

    The more difficult method of the "preventive" plus lens,
    must involved the intellectual judgment of the person who
    wishes to keep his distant vision clear -- for professional

    Since Neil Brooks chooses to attack your right to an informed
    choice in this matter -- and other ODs who support your right to a
    "second opinion", here is a short poem that describes the effect
    of his arrogance. I don't normally respond to personal insults,
    but Neil does not know when to quit.




    This poem is dedicated to Neil Brook's method of "curing"
    nearsightedness with a minus lens.

    This this process create stair-case myopia for
    our Asian friend? I wonder.

    The Ambulance (Minus-Lens) Down In The Valley

    'Twas a dangerous cliff, as they freely confessed,
    Though to walk near its crest was so pleasant;

    But over its terrible edge there had slipped
    A duke, and full many a peasant.

    The people said something would have to be done,
    But their projects did not at all tally.

    Some said, "Put a fence 'round the edge of the cliff,"
    Some, "An ambulance down in the valley."

    The lament of the crowd was profound and was loud,
    As their hearts overflowed with their pity;

    But the cry for the ambulance carried the day
    As it spread through the neighboring city.

    A collection was made, to accumulate aid,
    And the dwellers in highway and alley

    Gave dollars or cents - not to furnish a fence -
    But an ambulance down in the valley.

    "For the cliff is all right if you're careful," they said;
    "And if folks ever slip and are dropping,

    It isn't the slipping that hurts them so much
    As the shock down below - when they're stopping."

    So for years (we have heard), as these mishaps occurred,
    Quick forth would the rescuers sally,

    To pick up the victims who fell from the cliff,
    With the ambulance down in the valley.

    Said one, to his peers, "It's a marvel to me
    That you'd give so much greater attention

    To repairing results than to curing the cause;
    You had much better aim at prevention.

    For the mischief, of course, should be stopped at its source,
    Come, neighbors and friends, let us rally.

    It is far better sense to rely on a fence
    Than an ambulance down in the valley."

    "He is wrong in his head," the majority said;
    "He would end all our earnest endeavor.

    He's a man who would shirk his responsible work,
    But we will support it forever.

    Aren't we picking up all, just as fast as they fall,
    And giving them care liberally?

    A superfluous fence is of no consequence,
    If the ambulance works in the valley.

    The story looks queer as we've written it here,
    But things oft occur that are stranger;

    More humane, we assert, than to succor the hurt
    Is the plan of removing the danger,

    The best possible course is to safeguard the source;
    Attend to things rationally.

    Yes, build up the fence and let us dispense
    With the ambulance down in the valley.
    otisbrown, Jun 9, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    That's still not proof.

    Perhaps--instead of your misguided attempts at soliloquy and
    prose--your time would be better spent laying out those clinical
    trials that we talked about....
    Neil Brooks, Jun 9, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. The problem with this little analogy is that no matter how much you
    spend on the fence, people will walk around it or climb over it.
    Meanwhile you've squandered the funds that the ambulance service could
    have used, not just to rescue the people that fell, but also to help
    people with all sorts of other medical problems that had nothing to do
    with the fence. So in the end, you've wasted all that time, and money,
    spoiled the view completely for everyone, and you'll never get to the
    hospital in time.

    really it was a very good analogy, for *our* side of this little squabble...

    w.stacy, o.d.

    [besides, fences on virgin cliffs are just as ugly as "preventive"
    (over-prescribed plus) lenses on little babies]
    William Stacy, Jun 10, 2005
  4. otisbrown

    drfrank21 Guest

    As with everything you post, your header was mis-leading. This
    was NOT a short poem!!

    drfrank21, Jun 10, 2005
  5. otisbrown

    RM Guest

    No. They have been placed in front of his face numerous times. By you, Dr.
    Judy, and others as I recall. He will continue to ignor them. Or argue
    bias on the part of the researcher or something similar.

    Regardless of all the data Otis is committed to his theory of myopia

    Irregardless of any facts or proof to the contrary! He is a fanatic, and
    psychologically troubled.

    RM, Jun 10, 2005
  6. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Frank,

    It is all relative.

    Have you read poems by Robert Service?


    otisbrown, Jun 11, 2005
  7. otisbrown

    RM Guest

    Otis "Engineer" is a zealot who advocates his "plus lens" prevention theory
    without good reason. There is no scientific data to prove what he proposes.
    He would ask that all myopes (=nearsighted persons) go around wearing plus
    reading glasses in hopes that it will eventually reverse their
    nearsightedness. Nevermind that the blurry distance vision that myopes
    complain about is made worse by plus lenses! Nevermind that there is no
    proof for what he claims.

    If you are interested in Otis' approach, I have some other links that you
    might also be interested in:





    For information on killfilling (filtering out the posts of a troll or
    spammer like Otis) see the following link:
    For additional information on handling "trolls", refer to this link:

    RM, Jun 11, 2005
  8. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    As usual, RM denys to our face the truth about the
    dynamic nature of the funamental eye.

    You simply take a population of primates and
    measure their refractive state.

    You then devide them in 1/2.

    You apply a srong "near" environment to 1/2 the population
    of primates.

    You then measure the refractive state of both the
    test group and control group.

    RM maintains as an absolute truth that no
    difference in refractive state will develop
    between the test group and the control group.

    RM will NEVER adress this type of pure scientific

    Will you?

    You can either work to establish an honest assessment
    of the dynamic nature of the natural eye -- on
    and "input" versus "output" basis -- on you
    can believe RMs asertions.

    Anyone wishing to take science seriously should
    take this truth seriously.

    If not -- believe RM.


    otisbrown, Jun 12, 2005
  9. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Goodnight, Otis.

    Dr. Leukoma, Jun 12, 2005
  10. [besides, fences on virgin cliffs are just as ugly as "preventive"
    All babies are ugly anyway. I believe people with plus lenses are
    rather interesting to look at.

    If babies with pluses are ugly, then babies with minuses are ugly? If
    yes, how dare you. If no, how dare you.

    Which matters more; how ugly a baby is, or, how ugly a teenage myope
    is, not mention how blind they are, which is the ugliest thing of all.
    CHINESEMALE(age16), Jun 12, 2005
  11. Otis "Engineer" is a zealot who advocates his "plus lens" prevention theory
    Otis has good reason. Even if he is wrong, which he may be, he has an
    addiction, as I do, in telling others what to do. We like our
    temporary leadership, it is addictive. We feel that, maybe if we help
    others, others will treat us better, when they obviously treat us
    worse. We feel that the greater good must be fought for. But maybe we
    are wrong, maybe we are crazy, I have been called crazy a bunch of
    times, and my mom actually is crazy (bipolar). Nevertheless, we have
    good cause, we feel betrayed, betrayed by society, eye doctors,
    betrayed by those around us. Although there may be no reason, and all
    this effort may be for naught, we have cause.
    CHINESEMALE(age16), Jun 12, 2005
  12. As usual, RM denys to our face the truth about >the
    Yes, do not we have the right of free speech?
    CHINESEMALE(age16), Jun 12, 2005
  13. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    My Asian Friend,

    The "greater good" is in fact the
    "second--opinion" which is
    now used by Steve Leung OD.


    But going through these issues
    we can face the necessity
    of useing the plus at a
    refractive state of -1/2 D,
    but an eye-chart of 20/25.

    At that point -- if you are totally
    informed of this preventive alternative -- then
    you can make a reasonable, informed
    choice in the matter.

    As per "The Printer's Son" we can
    learn to work WITH ODs like
    Raphaelson and Steve Leung.

    But we must be "intellectually" prepared
    for this type of decision, because
    you can no inform a person
    of these details -- who had NEVER
    heard about prevention up to that

    Indeed sci.med.vision can be
    a powerful tool to begin understanding
    these issues developed by
    Steve Leung OD, so that
    the method can be used
    when it can be truly effective.


    otisbrown, Jun 13, 2005
  14. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    The last time I checked, Steve Leung was basically towing the OEP line,
    and there is certainly nothing new or revolutionary in that approach.

    I also took a look at Don Rehm's website, and his "Myopter." I
    followed the link to the "scientific paper" on the Myopter, and guess
    what? No studies of safety and efficacy. Not one, zip, nada.

    All these folks who cloak themselves in "prevention," without a fig
    leaf of efficacy to cover themselves. There can be no serious
    discussion of prevention when we are continually dragged back into the
    garbage heap of failed and discredited ideas.

    Dr. Leukoma, Jun 13, 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.