The elevator seems to be howling again....

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by Neil Brooks, Mar 7, 2007.

  1. Neil Brooks

    Neil Brooks Guest

    From his own little soapbox. My commentary peppered throughout:

    Dear Stirling,

    Subject: What is WRONG with optometry?

    Re: The answer -- the same thing that is WRONG with
    ALMOST all of us!

    I met a wonderful man. He threw optometry "out the window",
    and put his kids in a plus.

    He then quit optometry and went into real estate.

    What is wrong (us, the ignorant, none motivated public) is that
    we want an instant quick-fix, and anyone who says anything
    different is crazy, a "crank", or an "isolated" scientist.

    I get this sad impression that these majority-opinion ODs
    think that everyone is some kind of STUPID.

    That MIGHT be true of 99 percent of the population -- but
    not everyone.

    It is the 1 percent that "wakes up" as you have done that
    solve the problem.

    Please forgive this "rant" but I truly wish we (the National Eye
    Institute)
    could get off their duff, and acknowledge that not everything
    in this would can be "medicine". Not everything can be
    a quick-fix and five minutes and "heredity".

    At least the NEI could state the case for the preventive
    second-opinion, and promote an OPEN plus-prevention
    effort at a pilot-college like Embry Riddle.

    I am willing to teach a course of that nature. (Yes,
    brick-bats will be thrown at me. I just ask
    for scientific honesty.) I would do this for FREE.
    I just need supporting friends.

    But for now, thanks for your efforts.

    So far, I count about 10 to 20 people who have
    truly understood, and have ACTUALLY USED THE PLUS
    CORRECTLY AND SUCCESSFULLY.

    Now that leaves about a 100,000,000 who missed
    the boat. And tragically, once you start with the minus, your
    distant vision becomes so much spilt milk, so much
    water over the dam.
     
    Neil Brooks, Mar 7, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Neil Brooks

    otisbrown Guest

    Of course, Neil Brooks will lead all of you to
    a better solution.

    Enjoy his leadership.

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Mar 7, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Neil Brooks

    otisbrown Guest

    Let me see, do I believe the highly qualified Dr. Stirling Colage,
    or Neil Brooks, on matters of physical science.

    Let me see ... what are the qualifications of Books
    to make scientific statements about the dynamic
    qualities of the fundamental eye ...
     
    otisbrown, Mar 7, 2007
    #3
  4. Neil Brooks

    Neil Brooks Guest

    I guess it depends on which books you read, Uncle Otie....

    Speaking of Dr. Colage [sic] ....

    Can HE answer these questions? You know ... the ones you WON'T
    answer?

    http://nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt
     
    Neil Brooks, Mar 7, 2007
    #4
  5. Neil Brooks

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Hm. Dunno' what that means.

    Can't imagine anybody does.

    But ... that said ... I don't have a particular interest here, Uncle
    Otie, other than getting at what's true via logic, intellect, and the
    tried-and-true Scientific Method.

    As directly, diametrically, and distinctly different from ... you ...
    for example.

    Which brings up a few interesting questions -- questions I'd be
    grateful if you could answer:

    http://nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt

    Please don't be shy. It's just you and me. Nooooobody else is paying
    annny attention.....

    Thanks.
     
    Neil Brooks, Mar 7, 2007
    #5
  6. Neil Brooks

    otisbrown Guest

    Since Brooks copied this from my PREVENTIVE site -- I will post
    the originali:

    Dear Stirling,

    Subject: What is WRONG with optometry?

    Re: The answer -- the same thing that is WRONG with
    ALMOST all of us!

    I met a wonderful man. He threw optometry "out the window",
    and put his kids in a plus.

    He then quit optometry and went into real estate.

    What is wrong (us, the ignorant, none motivated public) is that
    we want an instant quick-fix, and anyone who says anything
    different is crazy, a "crank", or an "isolated" scientist.

    I get this sad impression that these majority-opinion ODs
    think that everyone is some kind of STUPID.

    That MIGHT be true of 99 percent of the population -- but
    not everyone.

    It is the 1 percent that "wakes up" as you have done that
    solve the problem.

    Please forgive this "rant" but I truly wish we (the National Eye
    Institute)
    could get off their duff, and acknowledge that not everything
    in this would can be "medicine". Not everything can be
    a quick-fix and five minutes and "heredity".

    At least the NEI could state the case for the preventive
    second-opinion, and promote an OPEN plus-prevention
    effort at a pilot-college like Embry Riddle.

    I am willing to teach a course of that nature. (Yes,
    brick-bats will be thrown at me. I just ask
    for scientific honesty.) I would do this for FREE.
    I just need supporting friends.

    But for now, thanks for your efforts.

    So far, I count about 10 to 20 people who have
    truly understood, and have ACTUALLY USED THE PLUS
    CORRECTLY AND SUCCESSFULLY.

    Now that leaves about a 100,000,000 who missed
    the boat. And tragically, once you start with the minus, your
    distant vision becomes so much spilt milk, so much
    water over the dam.

    ======================

    You can decide for your self if that dynamic-eye (blue-tint)
    animation of all fundamental eyes is correct, in which
    case Dr. Colgate is correct about plus prevention, or
    the blue-tint if FALSE in the sense of pure-science.

    Choose wisely.

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Mar 7, 2007
    #6
  7. Neil Brooks

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Sure. Trust a retired engineer and a physicist who treated himself
    and published the results in 1979. Never mind anything that has been
    published since.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Mar 7, 2007
    #7
  8. Neil Brooks

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear "L",

    Despite your head-in-the-sand attitude, and ignorance
    of the dynamic behavior of the fundamental eye (blue-tint animation)
    some second-opinion optometrists had "woken up" to the
    CORRECT use of the plus, and cleared off about -2 diopters
    of myopia (or so), to plano.

    Read how this Dr. of Optometry did it:


    http://www.optometrists.org/Boston/articles.html

    So yes, "L", you have every right to express you
    concept that the natural eye does NOT change its
    refractive STATE when you place a minus lens on it -- but
    objective scientific facts say othewise.

    I think parents should be made aware of this issue.

    And if you say you can not help a child with plus-prevention,
    (state your reasons of course) then please refer
    the child to an optometrist who WILL HELP that
    child with plus prevention -- when it can be effective.

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Mar 7, 2007
    #8
  9. Neil Brooks

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Otis,

    You dragged this newsgroup DOWN for how many years, now? You have had
    ample time to present the evidence, but all you can conjure up are a
    few anecdotes. When your "second opinion" OD's do post here, the data
    is weak at best, and in some cases appears to be manipulated. To top
    it off, you have the brass to call me and everybody else ignorant. I
    really doubt your sanity at this point. Look in the mirror, man.

    Your drivel is just not resonating here.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Mar 7, 2007
    #9
  10. Neil Brooks

    CatmanX Guest

    Yes we remember Dr Ornfield. She doesn't exist. Sort of like the rest
    of Cletis' examples.
     
    CatmanX, Mar 7, 2007
    #10
  11. Neil Brooks

    serebel Guest

    Otis's elevator can't seem to get out of the basement.
     
    serebel, Mar 8, 2007
    #11
  12. Neil Brooks

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Yes, but this is not physical science. It is biological science,
    where Dr. Colgate has no credentials.
    What are the qualifications of an optometrists making scientific
    statements about nuclear physics? What are the qualifications of a
    physicist making statements about human vision? Linus Pauling was a
    Nobel laureate in chemistry. Were his theories correct about
    ingesting 20 grams of Vitamin C daily?

    Think about it.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Mar 8, 2007
    #12
  13. Neil Brooks

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Lest I forget...what are your qualifications to make statements about
    human vision?

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Mar 8, 2007
    #13
  14. Neil Brooks

    Neil Brooks Guest

    If you believe in anecdotal evidence as strongly as Otis does, then he
    DID induce myopia in his niece.

    You gotta' give him that.

    QED
     
    Neil Brooks, Mar 8, 2007
    #14
  15. Neil Brooks

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    I wonder if Ms. Brown knew how Otis is spending his time? She would
    probably whack his fingers with a wooden spoon.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Mar 8, 2007
    #15
    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.