Dear Keith,

Subject: Numb-skulls that make legal threats.

Re: This "kills" any second-opinion support you might have
expected from an OD working towards true-prevention.


I am very pleased that you learned how to protect your
distant vision for life. It is a hard lesson to learn. Indeed,
you ablity to "push" youself to run the Ironman is part of it. If
you take care of your body -- and know what you are doing -- you
can protect your vision also.

I used to wonder why no OD would volunteer "preventive"
information -- so I could use it for my own personal benifit. The
reason they do not is "legal threat".

They spend about $ 120 K and four years in OD college. Yet
any idiot can file a "lawsuit" against them -- for no good reason
-- and "kill" their ablity to make a living and feed their family.
Would you put youself at that kind of risk -- just to help a
person with true-prevention with the plus? I do not expect ANY OD
to put himself at that kind of risk -- I know I would not. Only
for you personally could true "preventive" help be offered.

Here is the nature of an idiot's lawsuit -- just for you to
understand why you must do "prevention" yourself.

Best,

Otie


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

From: Neil Brooks <neil0...@...> - Find messages by

Subject: Neil Brooks calls an optometry board.

Neil> I received a letter today from Pennsylvania.

Neil> It seems that preliminary investigation led the Franklin
County Attorney General's office to refer the matter to the
Governor's Office of General Counsel of the State who "will
conduct further inquiry into the allegations."

Neil> A Complaint File Number has been assigned. The ball is in
motion.

Neil> Good luck, Uncle Otie. I hope they find the Oakley-Young
study as compelling as you do.

Neil> You might want to prep Keith. I'm sure his story will clear
your good name.


Neil Brooks


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

3. otisbrown@...

Dear Prevention minded friends,

Subject: An informed, competent second-opinoin -- and why you
will NEVER hear about it.

I am an engineer -- not an OD.

I express the judgment that the fundamental eye is a dynamic
system.

You can believe as you like.

No OD would subject himself to this kind of abuse -- and I am
an engineer.

So you you wonder why you kids get:

1. No good advice on true-prevention.

2. An excessively strong minus.

3. Stair-case myopia -- leading to detached retina in later life.


You can understand the reasons in Neil Brooks turning an
engineer in to an OD Board -- for what?

Review of an academic concept that the natural eye as a
dynamic system -- changes it refractive state as the visual
enviroment is changed?

But ture-prevention is indeed hard work -- as Dr. Stirling
Colgate found out. It is also true, that my nephew couuld have
chosen "neglect" when on the threshold.

But he understood the meaning of the Oakley-Young study
(second-opinoin) and how to apply the concept correctly.

So he has kept his vision clear from age 13 to age 40.

What about your vision? Did you have any second-opnion
advice, that respected your intelligence, and potentially your
motivation?

Well -- now you know why.

Q. E. D.

Otis

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

Dear Keith,

Subject: The idiots in this world who act to "shut down" the
second-opinion on effective prevention with the plus.

I know that Neil Brooks sent you several emails "complaining"
because you helped yourself clear your vision through high school
and college -- when your friends experienced a "down" rate of -1/2
dipoter per year when they began wearing that minus all the time.

You may wonder why you received NO INFOMATION on this subject
(second-opinion) from an OD.

Here is the reason. Any idiot that walks in off the street
can sue the hell out of any OD who even broaches the subject of
true-prevention with the plus. It is not that they don's want to
help you, but it is rather that they spent 120 K and 4 years of
their life AFTER COLLEGE getting to their "position".

I am an engineer -- and would ONLY put myself at risk for
both YOU and your children.

You and they are the only IMPORTANT people to me in this
world.

You know I like to "figure things out" -- and this is proof
for this tragic situation indeed.

Best,

Otis

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

Dear Prevention minded friends,

Subject: Second-opinion on preventing negative refractive states.

I suggest that there is a profound difference concerning
"pure science" and "pure medicine". And I suggest the difference
is this:

Medicine: Must deal with a great mass of people walking in off
the street. There might be some "intelligent" people but
that can never be the assumption of the medical doctor.
The result is that we get "canned" procedures that "work"
instantly. I consider that people in this profession have
no choice but to conduct that kind of work -- and I would
do the same thing IN THEIR PROFESSION. That would not make
it "right" but I do understand them -- and what they are
doing.

Science: Must "step back" from that situation, and think about
the behavior of the natural eye as a dynamic system.
Engineers and scientists simply do not deal with children,
nor with others that do not understand the need to work on
prevention with the plus.

But when you ask very fundament questions about whether a
population of eyes (primates) are dynamic, you get the
"second-opinion" answer, that POTENTIALLY a negative refractive
status could be prevented -- before the minus lens is applied.

I believe that pure science (i.e., the SCIENTIFIC -- not
medical -- experiments proves that point.) But that is the nature
of our arguments. Many concepts in science simply can never be
reduced to "medicine" and we should understand that truth.

I enjoyed your write-up about pure science, and the "habit"
of tossing science out the window when a concept (like the dynamic
eye) can never produce a quick-fix in 15 minutes.

But that is how I separate "medical issues" from scientific
concepts and experimental and objective testing.

But that is why it took a scientist like Dr. Stirling
Colgate to do the "work" correctly and clear his vision from 20/70
to 20/20.

His statements are confirmed by direct experiments with the
primate eye, again on a pure-scientific (not medical) level.

Use the term "refractive state" where the natural eye can
have positive and negative refractive status (as a dynamic device)
and this situation becomes much clearer.

Best,

Otis

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

Dear Prevention minded freinds,


If you ever wonder why no OD will ever explain
true-prevention, you might read Neil Brooks slander against me.

If I were an OD -- I would not put myself at risk for your
long-term visual welfare. Would you?

But I have acted to "protect" my nephew -- to get him to face
and make this difficult choice that has life-time visual
consequences.

Would you like you intelligence rerspected in this matter --
what ever your choice.

I know I would -- but that is NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN -- with
idiots like Neil Brooks loose in this land.

All the other ODs are "off the hook". They can do absolulty
NOTHING for prevention for the general public that walks in
off-the-street. It is good to undrstand the exact reason for
there "self-protective" actions. This is not science.

This effectively defines the boundary between pure science
that respects the natural eye as a dynamic system, and "medicine"
that must deal with the "general public" and the threats posted by
people like Neil Brooks.


Best,

Otis