"Quick" <quick7135-news[at]NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote

- quote -

"Our clinic uses FDA-approved chemotherapy and radiation treatment for
cancer. However, some guy on the internet says we're required to inform you
that your cancer might also respond to the following therapies. We don't
believe so, but you are entitled to know that these alternative therapies
exist:"

Antineoplastons (derived from urine)
CanCell (inositol, nitric acid, sodium sulfite, potassium hydroxide,
sulfuric acid, and catechol)
Cell Specific Cancer Therapy (magnets)
Black walnut hulls, wormwood and cloves
Essiac (burdock, Indian rhubarb, sorrel, and slippery elm)
Fresh Cell Therapy (injected embryonic animal cells)
Gerson Therapy (flushing toxins from the body with coffee enemas)
Greek Cancer Cure (niacin injections)
Hoxsey Treatment (topical arsenic and ingested potassium iodide, red clover,
licorice, burdock root, Stillingia root, Berberis root, pokeroot, cascara,
prickly ash bark, and buckthorn bark.
Hydrazine
Hyperoxygenation (hydrogen peroxide, germanium sesquioxide, and ozone)
Iscadore (mistletoe)
Laetrile (peach pits, cyanide)
Macrobiotics (semivegetarian diet, balancing yin and yang)
Psychic Surgery
Psychological therapy
714X (camphor, ammonium chloride and nitrate, sodium chloride, ethyl
alcohol, and water)
Shark cartilage
Vitamin C

"Although current medical standards require that we limit our treatments to
those with demonstrated efficacy, we are sure that with determination and
personal fortitude, some of these treatments will cure your cancer. If they
don't, it's YOUR fault."

-MT

(Thanks to Quackwatch for suggesting these "second opinion" therapies.)

otisbrown[at]pa.net wrote:
- quote -

What about the faith healing method. You
have a right to be informed of that
"second opinion" as well right? (there might
not be a threshold for that...).

-Quick

Neil Brooks <neil0502[at]yahoo.com> wrote:

- quote -

It's pretty obvious that he isn't going to reply to me.

One of my best friends is a practicing optometrist at a Southern
California eye clinic, and has been for years.

Despite the obvious ("majority opinion OD" and all of that other
garbage) response that we can anticipate from Mr. Brown, the people at
that eye institute all got a kick out of his hypothesis and the
"reasoning" that he uses to come to his conclusions.

They used words like "bombastic" and "delusional" in response to the
printouts of Mr. Brown's words when they read them.

Mr. Brown: it's a new year. Maybe you ought to take this opportunity
to be a bit more introspective, and to decide why it is that you
persist so. Your ability to absorb justifiable ridicule is somewhere
between amazing and pathetic--closer to the latter.

If you still want to answer my questions, I'd still love to hear the
answers.

Though it seemed, for a short while, that we might have been spared
further nuisance posting from him,
"otisbrown[at]pa.net" <otisbrown[at]pa.net> wrote, no doubt while
slobbering:

- quote -

And you've repeatedly demonstrated that you are neither.

How's that apology coming, for falsely accusing me of contacting your
nephew? How're those responses coming, to "Only Have Eyes For You's"
questions?

--
Live simply so that others may simply live

Dear Scott,

You are an honest man -- and highly intelligent.

And so was Jacob Raphaelson. His story
of, "The Printer's Son" truly set me back -- because
I then realized that no "preventive" progress would
EVER be possible in that context.

Dispite our "intellectual" struggle, I believe that
you do have a right to be informed of a
second opinion (at the threshold ONLY).

If you turn it down then -- well that is IT.

The reality is not you and me, particularly, but
rather, how you wish to treat your own children
and grand-children.

I talked to Raphelson's grand child, and she
said, yes, grandpaw always INSISTED that
we be kept in a "plus one".

So these "issues" are not for me -- they
are ultimately for you to decide.

So, as always, please enjoy our
analysis of the living NATURAL eye
as a dynamic system, and the
mathematical modeling of that
system.

Best,

Otis

"otisbrown[at]pa.net" <otisbrown[at]pa.net> wrote in news:1135999818.991606.96410
[at]g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

- quote -

If I say I understand your "engineering" approach, but disagree, then you
say I don't understand the engineering. When I then defend my background,
then I'm full of myself (and that from a usenet kook that generates
hundreds, if not thousands, of posts on a discredited medical idea, just
because he likes hearing the sound of his own usenet voice).

When I question your science, I obviously don't understand the subtle
engineering issues. When it becomes clear that I understand the subtle
engineering issues, then my critique is without value because I have no
interest in the topic.

So, who out there is actually qualified to critique your "work"? I'm sure
the good folks at ARVO would be particularly interested to hear about such
valuable work on myopia prevention. Why don't you bring it there, and see
what those guys have to say about it? Oh, that's right-- that bare minimum
of review for an Abstract presentation wouldn't recognize your clear
Kuhnian revolution in the making for the truth, and holding your breath
saying that thirty years of literature is wrong without coming up with any
reasons for why this is so just won't fly.

FWIW, my real interest in this matter is to keep people from laughing every
time they think of an engineer in the life sciences, and to separate the
pseudo-science that you do from the science of serious people in the field.

FWIW, I hope the your State Attorney's General office hopes to track down
that poster that claimed his or her kid was worse off after following your
advice. Maybe the jury will find your legal disclaimer as funny as I do.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

No, Otis. I would be "shit-canned" because the treatment would be
ineffective. If the treatment was effective, then I would be "praised"
and not "shit-canned."

DrG

"otisbrown[at]pa.net" <otisbrown[at]pa.net> wrote:

- quote -

No, Ace. It's just you I'm gunning for ... and I'm really good.

Are they in your driveway yet?? Are you starting to hear Merle
Haggard and Johnny Cash tunes yet??
--
Live simply so that others may simply live

Dear DrG,

Otis> You statement is good.

Another non-sequitur, Otis. In my clinic, I can recommend virtually
any treatment I deem effective, including prescribing bifocals and plus

lenses for the prevention of myopia. If I wanted to earn the label of
"quack" or "charlatan" in my community, I should do so starting on the
day after the New Year.

Otis> You are absolutly RIGHT! When Raphaelson did this -- he
was shit-canned. But of course this is due to the public
expecting EXCLUSIVELY a minus lens. They would
get very suspecious of you -- if you recommended a
pure-plus. Further, if the likes of Neil Brooks came
into the "picture" you coudl expect a law-suit, and
you would be turned over to the OD Board for
"re-education". No, I understand why you
can not "work" prevention.

Otis> It is up to the person himself to figure this
out -- and do it himself -- in my opinion.

Otis> This is what makes "prevention" so difficult.

Best,

Otis


DrG

<otisbrown[at]pa.net> wrote

- quote -

And we've shown you more recent studies showing it does NOT slow myopia
progression, in fact there are studies showing that myopia INCREASES FASTER
with undercorrection.

-MT