> Dear CDA,
> Subject: Neil Brooks "qualfications".

> Neil Brooks has no medical qualifications to make any
> medical statement.
> He makes mindless statements with no scientific support.

> I have identified myself as an engineer, by training, and
> have reviewed the subject understand the wisdom
> of the preventive second-opinion.

> But even in ophthamology, some medical doctors
> believe it is wise as Dr. Romano states.

> Subject: Neil Brooks "qualfications".

> He makes mindless statements with no scientific support.

> On Apr 3, 9:55 am, cda...[at]directflatscreen.tv wrote:
> > Unless Otis's opinions have caused harm to someone there is no need to
> > be confrontational.
> They have.
> I reported just shy of a dozen cases of double vision--induced in
> unsuspecting people following Otis's advice, whether for themselves or
> their children--to the State of Pennsylvania who has an open
> investigation on the matter.
> The fact that Otis "prescribes" to pre-teen children, and without
> parental consent, is repugnant to most people.

> Unless Otis's opinions have caused harm to someone there is no need to
> be confrontational.

> On Apr 2, 11:09 am, cda...[at]directflatscreen.tv wrote:
> > Is anyone in this group professional? Or does everyone forget they've
> > been on this merry-go-round before? Life is just a bit of history
> > repeated until the clearing at the end of the path is attained.
> I'd say you're new here, huh?
> I'm not.
> Absent Otis, everybody here is kind, helpful, and professional. Otis
> is poisonous to an otherwise exceptional group.
> Look back at about 7+ years of history before rendering judgment on
> those who respond to him.

> Is anyone in this group professional? Or does everyone forget they've
> been on this merry-go-round before? Life is just a bit of history
> repeated until the clearing at the end of the path is attained.

> The question in this
> case is the proper determination of IOL power in the absence of
> cataract. What other factors are used besides corneal curvature, axial
> length, and present correction needed for distance?
> Say a person had a prescription of:
> OD -13.3
> OS +0.50 -2.25 x170
> Has K's of:
> OD 44.37 x0 44.37 x0 7.61mm 7.61mm axial length: 25.48
> OS 43.25 x175 45.50 x85 7.80mm 7.42mm axial length: 23.57

> You too? In the days when I was responding to Otris' stuff, he would
> say repeatedly that I said that the eye is not "dynamic", which was a
> complete fabrication as everyone knows the young healthy human eye is
> very dynamic. It's just that his definition of dynamic is not the
> English definition. Just like his definitions of natural, fundamental,
> refractive state, minus and plus to name a few are not from around here...
> w.stacy, o.d.
> p.clar...[at]gmail.com wrote:
> > On Apr 2, 10:25 am, "otisbr...[at]pa.net" <otisbr...[at]pa.net> wrote:
> > > PClar,
> > > You tell the public scientific lies when you state
> > > that the fundamental eye is not dynamic -- with
> > > respect to an applied -3 diopter lens. See:
> > Err-- i don't recall ever saying this. why are you putting words in
> > my mouth?
> > the "-3.00 diopter" data that you are referring to is performed on
> > monkeys, not humans.
> > Goss et al. presented data in humans showing that overminusing by
> > -0.75D had no effect on myopia progression in children. why do you
> > ignor human data and grasp onto extrapolation from old experiments
> > done on lenses sutured onto the eyes of monkeys? you are not capable
> > of objective thinking.
> > > http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/FundEye.html
> > > I would suggest that a person be informed of this fact,
> > this site has nothing to do with facts. it is the thought process of
> > a kook. unless of course we are worried about inducing myopia in
> > monkeys where the article you salute clearly supports that we should
> > not overminus them by -3.00 or they might become myopic (not to
> > mention develop a crashing headache and have their eyes cross).
> > > and encouraged to review the preventive
> > > alternative (that is preventing the developement
> > > of a negative refractive STATE) before
> > > that FIRST strong minus lens is applied,
> > > and the individual told to "...wear it all the time ... it
> > > is GOOD for you.".
> > > I think you should respect the intelligence of the person,
> > > and show him the facts, rather than telling him
> > > convient office fibs.
> > i have scientific references which document my claims. the facts are
> > that:
> > 1. minus lenses do not induce myopia
> > 2. plus lenses or bifocals do not prevent myopia
> > please present us YOUR data, performed on human subjects (these issues
> > HAVE been studies in humans) which supports your claims. and quit
> > telling your internet fibs (aka LIES).
> > > And if the person "loves" the minus, that that would
> > > end your responsibility to him.
> > > But at least he would respect you for being HONEST
> > > with him, and respecting his right of choice.
> > > I know I would certainly respected the medical people
> > > I have talked to -- if they had taken that simple and
> > > honest step.
> > > Is there any (none-medical) person posting on here who would OBJECT
> > > to being supplied with an honest second opinion?
> > > And if so, why?
> > > Otis
> > Otis, the number of people in the entire world who believe in your
> > totally unsupported theory ("second opinion") can be counted with the
> > fingers on 1 hand. it all has been disproven in the last 25 years.
> > why won't you get on PubMed and Google Scholar and do a little
> > searching.
> > People aren't interested in your so-called "second opinion" because
> > its rubbish. such people might as well get their information from the
> > National Enquirer.
> > you are a pathetic, and frankly sick, man

> On Apr 2, 10:25 am, "otisbr...[at]pa.net" <otisbr...[at]pa.net> wrote:
> > PClar,
> > > You tell the public scientific lies when you state
> > that the fundamental eye is not dynamic -- with
> > respect to an applied -3 diopter lens. See:
> > > Err-- i don't recall ever saying this. why are you putting words in
> my mouth?
> the "-3.00 diopter" data that you are referring to is performed on
> monkeys, not humans.
> Goss et al. presented data in humans showing that overminusing by
> -0.75D had no effect on myopia progression in children. why do you
> ignor human data and grasp onto extrapolation from old experiments
> done on lenses sutured onto the eyes of monkeys? you are not capable
> of objective thinking.
> > http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/FundEye.html
> > > I would suggest that a person be informed of this fact,
> > > this site has nothing to do with facts. it is the thought process of
> a kook. unless of course we are worried about inducing myopia in
> monkeys where the article you salute clearly supports that we should
> not overminus them by -3.00 or they might become myopic (not to
> mention develop a crashing headache and have their eyes cross).
> > and encouraged to review the preventive
> > alternative (that is preventing the developement
> > of a negative refractive STATE) before
> > that FIRST strong minus lens is applied,
> > and the individual told to "...wear it all the time ... it
> > is GOOD for you.".
> > > I think you should respect the intelligence of the person,
> > and show him the facts, rather than telling him
> > convient office fibs.
> > > > i have scientific references which document my claims. the facts are
> that:
> 1. minus lenses do not induce myopia
> 2. plus lenses or bifocals do not prevent myopia
> please present us YOUR data, performed on human subjects (these issues
> HAVE been studies in humans) which supports your claims. and quit
> telling your internet fibs (aka LIES).
> > And if the person "loves" the minus, that that would
> > end your responsibility to him.
> > > But at least he would respect you for being HONEST
> > with him, and respecting his right of choice.
> > > I know I would certainly respected the medical people
> > I have talked to -- if they had taken that simple and
> > honest step.
> > > Is there any (none-medical) person posting on here who would OBJECT
> > to being supplied with an honest second opinion?
> > > And if so, why?
> > > Otis
> > > > Otis, the number of people in the entire world who believe in your
> totally unsupported theory ("second opinion") can be counted with the
> fingers on 1 hand. it all has been disproven in the last 25 years.
> why won't you get on PubMed and Google Scholar and do a little
> searching.
> People aren't interested in your so-called "second opinion" because
> its rubbish. such people might as well get their information from the
> National Enquirer.
> you are a pathetic, and frankly sick, man