"Bassslapper" <dr_george[at]prodigy.net> wrote

- quote -

We all agree on that. It's too bad that the PhDs and the academic centers
don't share Otis's standards for "proof."

-MT

In article <9NMEf.6877$2O6.541[at]newssvr12.news.prodigy.com> ,
"Quick" <quick7135-news[at]NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

- quote -

Not that I'm endorsing anything or anyone, but bloodletting has been
making a comeback. In fact it's FDA approved, which is much more than
can be said for Otisology.
FDA approves leeches as medical devices - More Health News - MSNBC.com
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5319129/

--
~RT

Bassslapper wrote:
- quote -

You're kidding right? Promoting fhe curative practice of
bleeding would fit very well with what you say above.

-Quick

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

I use the jargon everyone understands, including the scientists who
publish in the field. You prefer to invent your own terms.
- quote -

I don't understand what you mean. Do you mean you don't have time to
read the research, which means that you are advising people without
having an understanding of what you are advising? What learning
process will you have the layperson go through, if you aren't capable
of learning anything yourself?
- quote -

Name the researchers and their papers in the peer-reviewed literature
within the past 15 years.
- quote -

dictating what it is that we are supposed to offer you, which basically
amounts to self-help and not a scientific discussion. I'm sure you can
find an appropriate forum for that, but it isn't here.

DrG

Dear DrG,

Subject: Respecting a person's right to an informed, second-opinion.


DrG> Otis, I dislike your personal attacks on the eye care professions


Otis> Bull S___. Use the word "refractive state", were the
natural, living eye can have both positive and negative
refractive states -- and their is no "attack". It is
all in your mind.

DrG> and
the Ph.D.'s and scientists

Otis> And again, more intellectually blind Bull S___. I have
friends in all walks of life. And I do not deal with a great
mass of people walking in off the street. That is why
I expect the person to go throuhg a "learning process"
if he is to PERSONALLY use the plus correctly -- and
successfully.

DrG> who have published valuable research in the
field.

Otis> Good -- and I am personal friends with such researchers.
We have a FRIENDLY discussion about the pardigm used
to represent the living eye as a sophisticated system.
Something you totally ignore and do not understand at all.
Try reading "Structure of scientific revolutions."

On the other hand, you have contributed nothing but smoke and mirrors.
Indeed, there exists no true "preventive alternative" of the kind you
suggest.

Otis> More Bull. I asked for help with prevention -- and
you told me to get stuffed. So much for your
"majority opinion".

Otis



DrG

otisbrown[at]pa.net wrote:

- quote -

Otis, I dislike your personal attacks on the eye care professions and
the Ph.D.'s and scientists who have published valuable research in the
field.

On the other hand, you have contributed nothing but smoke and mirrors.
Indeed, there exists no true "preventive alternative" of the kind you
suggest.

DrG

Dear Bass,

Subject: Understanding the dynamic behavior of the natural eye.

I regret the "personal" attacks I receive on sci.med.vision.

As I suggested, I would have LIKED TO RECEIVE information concerning
the PREVENTIVE alternative. (At the threshold -- when it could be
effective.)

This would be stated as the second-opinion, and I would then PERSONALLY
go research the proven behavior of the primate eye ON A SCIENTIFIC
LEVEL.

I know that a person who is highly motivated to use the "plus" can
clear his vision -- and keep it clear through the college years. It is
in no sense easy, but it is possible.

I would GLADLY PAY A TRUE-PROFESSIONAL FOR THIS ADVICE. That would be
Steve Leung OD.

If I turn it down at the 20/50 level (-1.25 diopters) and wear that
minus all the time, I will expect my refractive state to move negative
from that day forward at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year.

That is a very serious issue, and should be spelled out to the
individual. That "first use" of the minus therefore has life-time
consequences.

These majority-opinion ODs can and SHOULD point to the fact that any
psycho-idiot can prefer "charges" against them (for no good reason) and
put them OUT OF BUSINESS -- with out any proof and with no good reason.

But that is to say that "practice" is determined by the lowest common
denominator among us -- and NOT by scientific preception of the natural
eye as a dynamic system.

Think about it. "Practice" is not based on science, or scientific
fact, but meery what "works" on the general public walking in off the
street -- and what works in a "legal-protective" mode, or "protection"
against any false charge leveled by a person like "Brooks".

If the preson understands the nature of "practice" he will have a
pretty good idea as to why this traditional "minus lens theory" and
method continues with out ANY CHALLENGE for
the last 400 years.

It is a shame that we must have these "pissing" contests. Rather, let
us understrand the "limits" of a group of people dealing with a mass of
people walking in off the street. You
can NEVER supply the "educatiion" to such people in 15 minutes in a
"office".

But that is indeed the "limit" that is imposed on an OD --even those
who will support the first step towards fundamental chage -- which is
what I advocate.

Thus I do not "prescribe" anything -- except for "informed choice" at
the threshold. It becomes a matter of the person himself if he wishes
to be supported in "prevention" with the plus.

Best,

Otis

If we can sift through the name calling and accusations, I think the
fundamental thing Otis is trying to espouse is the prevention of
myopia. I think it is safe to say that most myopes would prefer not to
be myopic and not rely on visual aids to see better. Otis' point, his
suggestions aside, is that the industry needs to make a paradigm shift
in it's standard of care and the industry owes it to the public to
offer alternatives if a child is begining to show signs of myopia. I
know most of you feel Otis' theories are incorrect and feel he is
dispensing medical advice without having a license to do so, but if
there are proven alternatives or treatments that are available to stave
off, minimize, and even reverse myopia, the public has a right ot
informed consent about these. If the eye industry is holding back for
any reason, then shame on the eye industry.

Again, this is a lot of if's. Both sides of the arguement have lots of
good and stimulating points that make one want to research further.
It's a shame it has to digress into a pissing match.

just be prepared to explain your promotion of a disproven method using
a medical device. even an eye doctor who would promote such a method
for which there is so much evidence against it would have serious
difficulties when confronting a licensing board. just ask your hero
steve leung. why do you expect someone like yourself, who is totally
unqualified and unlicensed, would fair any better?

but perhaps you would fair better when confronted by the licensing
authorities. they might conclude that you are simply a senile old fool
and shrug off your foolishness without stiff penalties. perhaps
ignorance is bliss after all. you should hope that it might work out
that way. or perhaps they won't take you seriously because they might
conclude that anyone who accepts advise from an idiot on the internet
is a fool themselves.

i think thats it otis-- when the licensing board starts asking
questions just play the role of the "fanatic zealot old man who spends
all day on the internet believing they are helping someone". don't try
any scientific arguments, your dumb raphaelson story, or your web links
to chinamyopia or steve leung. if the debate ever comes down to what
the scientific evidence is you'll be shot down quickly. just act dumb
and they'll probably blow you off with just a stern reprimand. you
should be able to pull it off easily!

On 2 Feb 2006 16:43:56 -0800, otisbrown[at]pa.net wrote:

- quote -

Otis,

You are the problem by giving out medical advice.

You are not in the medical profession and not in the position to give
medical advice.

Allen