|
|
| Author |
Message |
Neil Brooks
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 1148
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 12:29 pm Post subject:
========== OTIS BROWN WARNING ==========
|
|
|
Dear Reader,
Before you consider paying attention to anything that Otis Brown
(otisbrown@pa.net) writes, I invite you to review all of his previous
posts.
Not only is there no scientific data on humans to support his fantasy,
but there IS plenty that proves him wrong.
Otis gets the basis of his warped, disproved ideas from concepts
written a century ago and one study done on CHICKENS!
Any of you folks chickens ?
Otis Brown is more than simply bizarre. He's wrong. See the weekly
(Mondays) "welcome to sci.med.vision" for information on how to
block his ramblings.
If you can find a shred of evidence or scientifically accepted proof
of the efficacy of using plus lens therapy to prevent the progression
of myopia in humans then, by all means, follow his advice, but do so
only under the care of a licensed optometrist or ophthalmologist.
"Scientifically accepted proof" results from experiments conducted
within the "scientific method" explained here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Otis's posts tend to fall into the category of anecdotal (or made up):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
Otis's posts can be reviewed at:
http://snipurl.com/e77s
http://snipurl.com/fe3d |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
otisbrown@pa.net
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 1447
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 2:24 pm Post subject:
Re: ========== OTIS BROWN WARNING ==========
|
|
|
Jeeze Neil, you are really "hard over" to day.
But if you are going to "warn" people
about something, why not spell
out EXACTLY what they are being
warned NOT TO DO?
Should they not listen to the scientist
Dr. Stirling Colgate who used
the plus -- and cleared his distant vision.
Is that the nature of your warning?
Should they not be offered an
"empowering" second opinion by
Dr. Steve Leung OD -- who
is using the plus to protect
his own children's distant vision?
www.chinamyopia.org
Do you consider them too stupid
to look at direct experimental
data that proves that the natural eye
is dynamic, in the sense of
scientifc "input" versus "output"
testing.
Do you want them to roll-over
and play dead -- so you can
put them in a strong minus lens -- and
ignore the consequences.
You want a passive and ignorant
population to deal with -- who
does not think.
I suggest that is time we get
away from these mindless
"warnings" you are posting
and intelligently discuss the
second opinion with people
who have the greatest need for is.
Best to my THINKING sci.med.vision
friends.
A fighting chance -- is better
than no chance at all.
Otis |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neil Brooks
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 1148
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 2:34 pm Post subject:
Re: ========== OTIS BROWN WARNING ==========
|
|
|
"otisbrown@pa.net" <otisbrown@pa.net> wrote:
| Quote: | But if you are going to "warn" people
about something, why not spell
out EXACTLY what they are being
warned NOT TO DO?
|
I did.
| Quote: | Should they not listen to the scientist
Dr. Stirling Colgate who used
the plus -- and cleared his distant vision.
Is that the nature of your warning?
Should they not be offered an
"empowering" second opinion by
Dr. Steve Leung OD -- who
is using the plus to protect
his own children's distant vision?
|
They should recognize anecdotal evidence as anecdotal evidence, put
little to no value on it, and press you and your buddies to provide
proof in controlled human trials.
| Quote: | Do you consider them too stupid
to look at direct experimental
data that proves that the natural eye
is dynamic, in the sense of
scientifc "input" versus "output"
testing.
|
No, Otis. I only cast aspersions upon *you*, especially when you
throw out the red herrings of "dynamic," "input vs. output," "box
camera," and "scientific vs. medical."
These don't answer the question posed. They're just attempts, by a
weak minded individual, to distract the--what do you call them?
Thinking people--on s.m.v. from the fact that . . . you don't have any
facts to support your position.
Please get some.
| Quote: | Do you want them to roll-over
and play dead -- so you can
put them in a strong minus lens -- and
ignore the consequences.
|
No. I only want you to prove the efficacy of what you so passionately
believe to be true. Passionate belief <> fact.
| Quote: | You want a passive and ignorant
population to deal with -- who
does not think.
|
We have that in you, Otis. I wouldn't wish that on anybody else.
| Quote: | I suggest that is time we get
away from these mindless
"warnings" you are posting
and intelligently discuss the
second opinion with people
who have the greatest need for is.
|
I suggest that the warnings will continue until either:
1) You stop contributing to this newsgroup, or
2) You provide proof--in accordance with the commonly-accepted
scientific method--that minus lenses accelerate the progression of
myopia AND that use of plus lenses slows that progression.
Anecdotal bull$hit just doesn't count.
| Quote: | Best to my THINKING sci.med.vision
friends.
|
My comments are addressed to the thinking components. Yours reach out
to the desperate and the faithful.
| Quote: | A fighting chance -- is better
than no chance at all.
|
So tell me, Otis. Is there even a *fighting chance* that you'll
submit any *proof*?
Or will you just blather on like the cult hero you'd like people to
believe you are.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RM
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 326
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 2:44 pm Post subject:
Re: ========== OTIS BROWN WARNING ==========
|
|
|
good response Neil!
======
"Neil Brooks" <Neil0502@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:k8bba15clkhp3nuqho8ib7e0o5fmapc1t1@4ax.com...
| Quote: | Dear Reader,
Before you consider paying attention to anything that Otis Brown
(otisbrown@pa.net) writes, I invite you to review all of his previous
posts.
Not only is there no scientific data on humans to support his fantasy,
but there IS plenty that proves him wrong.
Otis gets the basis of his warped, disproved ideas from concepts
written a century ago and one study done on CHICKENS!
Any of you folks chickens ?
Otis Brown is more than simply bizarre. He's wrong. See the weekly
(Mondays) "welcome to sci.med.vision" for information on how to
block his ramblings.
If you can find a shred of evidence or scientifically accepted proof
of the efficacy of using plus lens therapy to prevent the progression
of myopia in humans then, by all means, follow his advice, but do so
only under the care of a licensed optometrist or ophthalmologist.
"Scientifically accepted proof" results from experiments conducted
within the "scientific method" explained here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Otis's posts tend to fall into the category of anecdotal (or made up):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
Otis's posts can be reviewed at:
http://snipurl.com/e77s
http://snipurl.com/fe3d
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
otisbrown@pa.net
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 1447
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 2:46 pm Post subject:
Re: ========== OTIS BROWN WARNING ==========
|
|
|
Apparently scientists, second-opinion ODs, scientific facts,
a person's right to an informed choice are all
wrong, wrong wrong.
The minus lens was put is place 400 year ago because it
is obviously effective in 10 minutes.
Sadly the science "behind" the method has all
but evaporated.
But that is the nature of our disagreement about
the proven behavior of the natural eye -- measured
in terms of refractive states.
If you want ot NOT believe in the facts themselves,
while maintaining your fantasy that the eye
is a frozen-box camera that can't possibly
alter its refractive state to a delta in the
accommodation signal -- the keep on
believing your fantasy.
I prefer to examine the fact themselves -- and
you warn the public against looking at scientific
facts and technical analysis. Yours
is hardly a scientific approach, or a
scientific recommendation.
But you still have failed to identify any risks involved
with discussing the POTENTIAL for prevention with
the plus -- with a person.
They can always turn it down. How is that
a "risk" my friend. Please explain in detail,
since that is the second opinion as
expressed by Steve Leug OD.
Best,
Otis |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Neil Brooks
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 1148
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 2:52 pm Post subject:
Re: ========== OTIS BROWN WARNING ==========
|
|
|
"otisbrown@pa.net" <otisbrown@pa.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Apparently scientists, second-opinion ODs, scientific facts,
a person's right to an informed choice are all
wrong, wrong wrong.
|
There's no proof of efficacy in humans -- in accordance with the
commonly accepted scientific method. Period.
| Quote: | The minus lens was put is place 400 year ago because it
is obviously effective in 10 minutes.
Sadly the science "behind" the method has all
but evaporated.
|
And yet, what remains, is still orders of magnitude beyond the
"science" of your theories. There isn't any.
| Quote: | But that is the nature of our disagreement about
the proven behavior of the natural eye -- measured
in terms of refractive states.
|
What the hell are you talking about?
| Quote: | If you want ot NOT believe in the facts themselves,
while maintaining your fantasy that the eye
is a frozen-box camera
|
Ahhhh, the box camera. No. Mine's a digital camera.
| Quote: | that can't possibly
alter its refractive state to a delta in the
accommodation signal -- the keep on
believing your fantasy.
|
Fantasy? Me?? ROTFLMAO!!!
| Quote: | I prefer to examine the fact themselves -- and
you warn the public against looking at scientific
facts and technical analysis. Yours
is hardly a scientific approach, or a
scientific recommendation.
|
Hm. I believe what I'm doing is ASKING YOU TO PROVIDE FACTS.
You're such a moron, Otis.
| Quote: | But you still have failed to identify any risks involved
with discussing the POTENTIAL for prevention with
the plus -- with a person.
|
Luckily, the burden isn't on me. I'm not foisting a theory--with
faith as my only support system--on the unknowing. You are.
| Quote: | They can always turn it down. How is that
a "risk" my friend. Please explain in detail,
since that is the second opinion as
expressed by Steve Leug OD.
|
Prove it works, Otis. Just prove it works.
It's efficacy AND its safety (or lack thereof) will come out in
clinical trials.
Prove it works, Otis. Just prove it works.
Now . . . I'm done with your sorry a$$ for a while. I will continue
to post the warnings until you go away or post the proof.
Remember: scientific method, not anecdotal evidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Tyner
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 1299
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 3:03 pm Post subject:
Re: False and misleading information
|
|
|
<otisbrown@pa.net> wrote
| Quote: | They can always turn it down. How is that
a "risk" my friend. Please explain in detail,
since that is the second opinion as
expressed by Steve Leug OD.
|
Has Steve Leug OD published his efficacy data?
You know, comparisons between treated and untreated human myopes?
Hello?
Anybody home?
-MT |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Tyner
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 1299
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 3:47 pm Post subject:
Re: False and misleading information
|
|
|
<otisbrown@pa.net> wrote
| Quote: | Sadly the science "behind" the method has all
but evaporated.
|
Yeah. Pubmed finds nothing when you search for "myopia prevention."
| Quote: | But that is the nature of our disagreement about
the proven behavior of the natural eye -- measured
in terms of refractive states.
|
But you don't measure refractive state. You measure acuity and claim that's
the same thing.
| Quote: | alter its refractive state to a delta in the
accommodation signal -- the keep on
believing your fantasy.
|
If you try that Pubmed search, just once, you'll find our "fantasy" is
widely believed by scientists who, by and large, don't sell glasses.
| Quote: | I prefer to examine the fact themselves -- and
you warn the public against looking at scientific
facts and technical analysis. Yours
is hardly a scientific approach, or a
scientific recommendation.
|
Ah... so how many technical, scientific papers have you found comparing
human myopes wearing bifocals, undercorrection, plus lenses?
No answer.
| Quote: | But you still have failed to identify any risks involved
|
We'll jump on that as soon as you find a single paper listed on PubMed
showing humans who wear glasses get worse than humans who don't.
I don't know why I bother. You don't read what I write.
-MT |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
William Stacy
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 1177
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 6:18 pm Post subject:
Re: False and misleading information
|
|
|
Mike Tyner wrote:
| Quote: | Hello?
Anybody home?
|
nobody but us (myopic) chickens... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Fri Jan 09, 2009 9:45 pm | All times are GMT
|
|
Mortgage Loans | Personal Loans | Secured Loans | Guitar Lesson | Guitar Lessons
|
|
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
|
|
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
electronics forum,
Science forum
Unix/Linux blog
Unix/Linux documentation
Unix/Linux forums
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
Medicine forums
»
vision
