Limits.txt


Dear Keith,

Subject: Recognizing the arguments against prevention at the
threshold by optometrists.

Some of these arguments are "good" and you should understand
their nature and motive.

But when it comes to scientific proof (not there presumed
"medical proof") this issue changes drastically.

Their "real world" is the public "demanding" an instant "fix"
with the minus lens. If there "requirement" is exclussively an
impressive quick-fix, then no scientific "preventive" progress
will ever be possible.

It is my hope that some people can rise about this "trap",
realize this, an use the "plus" correctly for their own personal
benifit.

This is why you must understand and evaluate these arguments.

For instance, Roland claims I do not have a "conscience".

++++++++++++++++

Izaac> So please, please Otis, prove to us that your method works
so that I can do all of the above and still have a clear
conscience.

Roland Izaac

++++++++++++++++

In fact, I must prove this issue to you, Keith, and you have
alread decided to protect your vision based on the objective facts
that YOU REVIEW. This is about YOUR empowerment. Done correctly,
you keep your vision clear -- and avoid any involvement with
Roland. Perhaps the only solution given this "attitude.


There are some issues that are truly tough. Deciding to
"protect" your vision -- under your own control -- is indeed very
difficult, and honestly, most people have virtually NO INTEREST in
their distant vision. Then they lose it to the lens. Then they
ask, "why" -- and refuse to listen to the answer.

Here are the arguments.

Otis

______________


Dear Prevention minded friend,

Here is some casual conversation about Neil Brooks, and my
advocacy for prevention at the threshold -- as the second-opinion.

"Aceman" and "Dicky" are laymen asking questions.

In this exchange, the majority-opinion ODs determine that if
"they" are not doing it -- it can not be done. Therefore any who
suggests it -- limiting it to prevention only -- must be totally
wrong by definition.

[The "not invented here" syndrome. i.e., we are Doctor
"Gods" so everyone else must be wrong. But equally, no one
is more "arrogant" that a person that is part of the "ignorant
public",
and worse, will "sue" anyone who deviates from "standard practice"
at a moments notice -- like Neil Brooks.

This again forces you to "figure this out" -- if you
wish to keep your distant vision clear, for life.

As always -- enjoy,

Otis

______________________

Newsgroups: sci.med.vision

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

Subject: Re: Regarding Aceman -- Explains a lot...

Dom schreef in bericht:

Jan-OD> This goes some way to answer my genuine curiosity about
the person behind all of Aceman's posts...

Neil> Thank you. That clears up just about everything.

Neil> Next question: Otis's excuse would be??


5. otisbrown@...

From: "otisbr...@..." <otisbr...@...> - Find messages by
this author

Subject: Re: Regarding Aceman -- Explains a lot...

Dear Neil,

[ My "excuse" for working on true-prevention with the plus. ]

That would be establishing the "Neil Brooks" effect on
"optometry", or why optometry must work in a legal "defensive"
posture.

In fact, these "majority-opinion" ODs do not have to mount
any more pseudo-scientific arguments at all.

All they need to say is that there practice is limited to the
"Neil Brooks" effect -- and I will understand their position --
PERFECTLY.

Otis

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

From: "Dr. Leukoma" <d...@...> - Find messages by this
author

Subject: Re: Regarding Aceman -- Explains a lot...

otisbr...@... wrote:

Otis> Dear Neil,

Otis> > That would be establishing the "Neil Brooks" effect on
"optometry", or why optometry must work in a legal
"defensive" posture.

Otis> > In fact, these "majority-opinion" ODs do not have to mount
any more pseudo-scientific arguments at all.

Otis> > All they need to say is that there practice is limited to
the "Neil Brooks" effect -- and I will understand their
position -- PERFECTLY.

> Otis


DrG> Otis is obsessed with Neil. Otis is obsessed with
optometrists. Otis is obsessed with minus lenses, and Otis
is obsessed with myopia.

DrG> Otis is obsessed.

DrG

[Comment: I guess you could say that the Wright brothers were
"obsessed" also -- not to mention Galileo, and anyone else
who was willing to go out of his way to solve a very
difficult problem -- or at least make an intelligent and
"directed" effort at doing to. OSB]

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

From: "otisbr...@..."

Subject: Re: Regarding Aceman -- Explains a lot...

Dear DrG,

Otis is concerned that a person be correctly informed of the
proven behavior of the natural eye.

Otis is concerned that you would get sued by Neil Brooks --
or any other psycho -- which explains why you will never discuss
prevention with the public that walks in off the street.

Otis would not do that either.

Otis is concerned that the person have an "informed" choice
in the matter -- and evaluate the various studies that indicate
that prevention is possible -- if the individual himself takes
that objective very seriously -- as my nephew did.

There are limits to what you are doing -- and Neil Brooks
defines that limit. Others on sci.med.vision are free to draw
their own conclusions about what they expect from you -- since you
are limited in that matter -- as I think you are.

This is not your fault -- it is the nature of your profession
as further defined by Dr. Jacob Raphaelson -- in, "The Printer's
Son".

But a better solution would envision a much closer
relationship between the person, as to what his goal was -- and
how you could help him. But you do not do that -- as the
"majority opinion".

Fortunately, there are other second-opinion ODs like Steve
Leung who will help the public with true-prevention -- as you will
not.

Think about it.

Best,

Otis

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

From: p.clar...@...

Subject: Re: Regarding Aceman

otisbr...@... wrote:

Otis> Otis is concerned that a person be correctly informed of the
proven behavior of the natural eye.

PClar> otis is uninformed about the PROVEN behavior of human eyes.
otis confuses the PROVEN behavior of HUMAN eyes with data on
chickens and monkeys which are PROVEN to be different than
HUMAN eyes. otis ignors this.

Otis> Otis is concerned that you would get sued by Neil Brooks --
or any other psycho -- which explains why you will never
discuss prevention with the public that walks in off the
street.

PClar> do not be concerned for us otis. we will not discuss
prevention with the public because we know about the
research on prevention methods. we know that there is no
effective prevention scheme. therefore we will not discuss
it with patients since we don't have anything to offer them.

PClar> thanks for your concern though.

Otis> This is not your fault -- it is the nature of your
profession as further defined by Dr. Jacob Raphaelson --
in, "The Printer's Son".

PClar> this is one of your favorite talking points isn't it. what
a romantic fellow you are. but the problem is not that we
fear reprisals from our colleagues, the authorities, or the
"system". we do not discuss prevention because there is
nothing to say.

Otis> But a better solution would envision a much closer
relationship between the person, as to what his goal was --
and how you could help him.

PClar> of course we want to help patients. that is what we do.
but to mislead them with false information (that) is hurtful
to people and helps no one.

Otis> Think about it.

PClar> we've thought about it. you are wasting your breath.

[Comment: PClar is close to the truth here. With respect
to most of the "public" and these "majority opinion"
ODs, they are in fact correct. But I say, what the hell,
someone must begin this work on intelligent prevention --
because they are never going to do it. In other words,
lead, follow, or get out of the way. OSB]

------------

Otis> Dear DrG,

Otis> Otis is concerned that a person be correctly informed of the
proven behavior of the natural eye.

Otis> Otis is concerned that you would get sued by Neil Brooks --
or any other psycho -- which explains why you will never
discuss prevention with the public that walks in off the
street.

Izaac> Right, and if an optometrist gets sued he has a lot to back
him up. Chicken studies, primate studies, Young's study of
near esophorics, What else Otis? Come on Otis, we need
something solid to back us up. Or can we say "Your Honour,
Otis Brown, and engineer and the world leader in myopic
prevention said..........."

Izaac> If optometrist gets sued for prescribing the second
opinion, they deserve it. Why? Because no such studies
exists to convince us that the plus method works.

Otis> Fortunately, there are other second-opinion ODs like Steve
Leung who will help the public with true-prevention -- as
you will not.

Izaac> Ok, so you mentioned one second opinion optometrist----any
more?

Roland Izaac

-----------------

From: "Dick Adams"

Subject: Re: Regarding Aceman -- Explains a lot...

"Philip D Izaac"

Izaac> Chicken studies, primate studies, Young's study of near
esophorics, What else Otis? Come on Otis, we need something
solid to back us up.

Dick> The way you guys line up to blast Otis is very interesting.
Maybe you have a secret, gnawing suspicion that encouraging
adolescent myopes (and others?) to focus close through their
distance eyeglasses may not be in their best interest?

Izaac> If optometrist gets sued for prescribing the second
opinion, they deserve it. Why? Because no such studies
exists to convince us that the plus method works.

Dick> "Second opinion" and "plus method" are pretty meaningless
and confusing expressions. In any discussion about the
possible detrimental effects of myopia corrections, they
are, I feel, inflammatory and obfuscatory.

Dick> I do not think that anybody expects OD's to come up with the
answer to progressive myopia, but, who knows, maybe somebody
will. Doubtful though you'd hear about it here on s.m.v.
while Otis and Ace are the only shows in town.

> Roland

Dick

=====

Izaac> Dear Otis,

Izaac> I can practice Optometry any way I like as there is no
Optometry board in Singapore to answer to.

Izaac> I can advertise "Specialist in Myopia Control" and have my
appointments filled to the hilt.

Izaac> I can make more money putting myopic kids into bifocals and
reading glasses.

Izaac> I can laugh all the way to the bank by putting every kid I
can lay my hands on (myopics, hyperopics and emetropics).

Izaac> Whats to stop me?

Izaac> Not even the "Neil Brooks" effect on optometry (which in my
opinion, is another one of your silly ideas).

Izaac> But, I know better than that --- and I have a conscience.

Izaac> So please, please Otis, prove to us that your method works
so that I can do all of the above and still have a clear
conscience.

Roland Izaac

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Grant> "Doubtful though you'd hear about it here on s.m.v. while
Otis and Ace are the only shows in town. "

Grant> Actually, no-shows I would think.

Grant> Otis harps on about a subject with no support, other than
one paper and a book written by someone who claims
conspiracy theories.

Grant> What in fact happens in the real (non-otis, non-ace world)
is that most optoms want to stop the progression of myopia,
but there is no proven way of doing it. I use plus lenses,
RGP contacts, OK, vision therapy, which have at best been
shown to slow the progression, at worst to do nothing.

[Comment: I divide the "real world" at "medicine", or dealing
with the great mass of people walking in off the street
(that contains "bombs" like Neil Brooks) from dealing with
intelligent scientists and engineers who can understand the
abstract concept of the fundamental eye proven to behave as
a dynamic system. A person who understand this, ultimately
realized that he must respect the facts themselves -- and
decide to "prevent" or ignore the plus, and accept
stair-case nearsightedness as a consequence. This is truly
an appeal to the intellect of the person who must do the
work to protect his distant vision. This simply can not be
reduced to Dr. Grants "real world" and he does not
understand this issue at all. OSB]

Grant> If I land in court, I have to be able to justify my actions
with verifiable evidence for my actions. Otis' theories
have holes so large that he could never win a case.
However, like a dog with a bone, he holds on, regardless of
the fact there is NO evidence to support his claims.

[Dr. Grant has swept ALL THE SCIENTIFIC DATA off the table that
proves that the natural eye is dynamic. So it is up to the
person himself to pay attention to objective scientific
facts and experiments and make this second-opinion choice
UNDER HIS OWN CONTROL. Because quite frankly, THERE IS NO
OTHER ALTERNATIVE FOR A PERSON AT -3/4 DIOPTERS AND 20/50.
osb]

Grant> Now comes the bit where Otis replies with his "proof" that
the is correct.

[Keith -- this is a matter of judgment. You made the better
choice. I work on an "engineering" level -- and not on
"Grants" level. It is VERY EASY to impress the public with
a minus lens. It is virtually impossible to "argue" with a
person about this. You can only "push" a person in the
direction he wishes to go in. Most people can not, and will
not be "pushed" -- and I do understand that situation
PERFECTLY. OSB]

dr grant

Otis