In article <Ya9Gf.12151$rH5.11613[at]newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net> ,
"Mike Tyner" <mtyner[at]mindspring.com> wrote:


- quote -

He can't because it does not exist, except, of course in his mind.

- quote -

You forgot to mention that his opinion has been discussed, tested and
disproved repeatedly, scientifically.

And lest we forget, it has now been four long years this month of Otis
and his Tale of Second Opinion. Congratulations, Otis, you continue to
prove only one thing: [fill in the blank or just leave it so.]

LB

<otisbrown[at]pa.net> wrote

- quote -

Irrelevant. Your answers cannot be assumed to apply to human eyes wearing
appropriate correction.

- quote -

Irrelevant. What you name it has no bearing on whether one group gets more
nearsighted than the other.

- quote -

The lie is that you pretend to know more than anyone else.

- quote -

You have not cited any scientific proof concerning appropriate correction on
human eyes.

- quote -

You are citing an opinion. You have not cited a comparison between one group
and another. Dr. Leung has not presented any comparison between human myopes
wearing appropriate minus and human myopes who don't. Until you present a
controverting set of data, we'll stay with the data we have.

- quote -

Stop trying to teach us science and present some evidence relating to
appropriate correction in human myopes.

Again, instead of giving us comparisons between groups, you give us blather,
rhetoric, and opinion. Your opinion is not sufficient to change medical
standards.

-MT

Dear Mike,

Subject: Pure science and objective measurements.

Re: Make certain we are respecting all natural eyes
as sophisticated systems.

My remarks are EXCLUSIVELY about a naturel eye
that can, and potentially does have a positive refractive
state.

I REFUSE to use the term "organic defect", or any other
assumption to talk about a population of natural primate
eyes that behave this way.

If you want to call scientific proof about the
natural eye's proven behavior a "lie" then do so.

It will not change the nature of pure science, nor
the nature of scientific proof.

And, while difficult, scientific proof does support the
preventive second opinion as conducted by
Steve Leung OD, and advocated by myself.

The others on this site can contemplate the
nature of scientific "proof" as evaluated
and presented by Thomans Kuhn, in
"The Structure of Scientific Revolutions".


Best,

Otis

<otisbrown[at]pa.net> wrote

- quote -

You continue to lie to us about the effect of appropriate correction,
without offering any evidence to support you.

Please prove your assertion of "stair-case" myopia.

-MT

Dear Readers,

Lighten up RM.

"Change" of any sort is always "fought against". And this
is just a "living" example of it.

Please "balance" RM's opinion against Steve Leung OD's
second-opinion on:

www.chinamyopia.org

And think for yourself. One think we do agree with is
that you should be informed of this choice -- because
neglect of the preventive method leads to permanent consequences.

These are consequences that I wish I had known about before
I was put into a strong minus.

Make up your own mind accordingly. Do not let
anyone tell you that EITHER of these two opinions
are "right" or "wrong".

What is important is what you want for yourself.

Best,

Otis

- quote -

Dear newsgroup participants,

Aside from being a terrible speller and a lousy poet, Otis Brown is a zealot
who refuses to admit his ideas about myopia prevention have been disproven
decades ago. Please disregard his statements. Please don't complicate your
lives by getting involved in the "struggle" to push him out of this
newsgroup. Scientific evidence, public embarrassment, and so far even the
licensing authorities in the State of Pennsylvania apparently can't spare us
from him. Just kill-file him on your newsreaders and greet him with the
deafening sound of silence. Otis just can't be reasoned with.

Neil -- Lighten up. Enjoy life!

I did some "dumb things" with my
6 year-old eyes -- and I accept the
consequences of it. I take responsibility.

I sugest we learn TOGETHER.

You do not like the dynamic-eye
concept. Fine. You childeren
should get the strongest minus lens
possible (20/10) vision, and the
associated stair-case myopia.

No one wants that to happen to
your child -- but some times
we are a little too bull-headed
about these issues.

If you do not like the "fense" then there
is always that Ambulence to pick you up.

Back up, and re-think what you are doing.

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

This poem is dedicated to your understanding of a 400 year-old
method of "curing" nearsightedness with a minus lens -- and
its sad consequence if you have a desire to keep your distant vision
clear through the school years.

We all have our "bad habits", and all love that minus
lens -- until we become aware of the second-opinion, and
its potential use at the threshold for prevention.

______________________________


The Ambulance (Minus-Lens) Down In The Valley


'Twas a dangerous cliff, as they freely confessed,
Though to walk near its crest was so pleasant;

But over its terrible edge there had slipped
A duke, and full many a peasant.

The people said something would have to be done,
But their projects did not at all tally.

Some said, "Put a fence 'round the edge of the cliff,"
Some, "An ambulance down in the valley."

The lament of the crowd was profound and was loud,
As their hearts overflowed with their pity;

But the cry for the ambulance carried the day
As it spread through the neighboring city.

A collection was made, to accumulate aid,
And the dwellers in highway and alley

Gave dollars or cents - not to furnish a fence -
But an ambulance down in the valley.

"For the cliff is all right if you're careful," they said;
"And if folks ever slip and are dropping,

It isn't the slipping that hurts them so much
As the shock down below - when they're stopping."

So for years (we have heard), as these mishaps occurred,
Quick forth would the rescuers sally,

To pick up the victims who fell from the cliff,
With the ambulance down in the valley.

Said one, to his peers, "It's a marvel to me
That you'd give so much greater attention

To repairing results than to curing the cause;
You had much better aim at prevention.

For the mischief, of course, should be stopped at its source,
Come, neighbors and friends, let us rally.

It is far better sense to rely on a fence
Than an ambulance down in the valley."

"He is wrong in his head," the majority said;
"He would end all our earnest endeavor.

He's a man who would shirk his responsible work,
But we will support it forever.

Aren't we picking up all, just as fast as they fall,
And giving them care liberally?

A superfluous fence is of no consequence,
If the ambulance works in the valley.

The story looks queer as we've written it here,
But things oft occur that are stranger;

More humane, we assert, than to succor the hurt
Is the plan of removing the danger,

The best possible course is to safeguard the source;
Attend to things rationally.

Yes, build up the fence and let us dispense
With the ambulance down in the valley.



=========



Dear Friends,

Subject: Understanding your (preventive) right of choice.

I have met some fine ODs -- of both the "majority opinion"
persuasion, and the "second opinion" persuasion.

Where there is a disagreement about the natural eye's
behavior the issue was resolved by reviewing the direct
experimental data.

It is very easy to quick-fix a natural eye with a negaitve
lens -- and impress the person concerned with it. This is of
course a "superfical" method indeed.

The more difficult method of the "preventive" plus lens, must
involved the intellectual judgment of the person who wishes to
keep his distant vision clear -- for professional reasons.

Since some majority-opinion ODs on choose to attack your right
to an informed choice in this matter -- versus second-opinion ODs who
support your right of choice.

No "change" can take place until you are adequately informed
of BOTH these methods -- their effects and consequences.



Enjoy,

Otis

Dear Reader,

Otis Brown is in no way qualified to give medical advice.

He is currently under investigation by the State of Pennsylvania for
practicing medicine without a license.

(see: http://nbeener.com/OTIS_INVESTIGATION.pdf)

Don't waste your time with Otis Brown. Don't waste your money with
Otis Brown. Take your children to a qualified optometrist or
ophthalmologist.
--
Live simply so that others may simply live