| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Medicine - Vision Forum » Otis? Just a pathological liar, huh?
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Neil Brooks |
 Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 7:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Also seen on Otis's little soapbox forum:
Quote: The issue of the natural eye's proven dynamic
behavior has always been a "hot" subject in
medicine.
If you wish to consult with a majority-opinion
ophthamoligist contact David Granet at:
http://eyesite.ucsd.edu/faculty/granet.htm
What reason could you POSSIBLY have for singling out David Granet?
He's an ocular motility/pediatric strabismus ophthalmologist.
Are you simply off your meds again??
What reason could you POSSIBLY have for referring people to MY
website? The only page on there about vision is the page of questions
that you won't answer.
Are you simply off your meds again??
Quote:
Both people have posted their judgment that
a -3 diopter lens has no effect on the
refractive STATE of the natural eye on
sci.med.vision.
Hey, Douchebag! You're the only one who uses this ridiculous
terminology. Stop lying.
Quote:
It is not clear exactly what medical qualifications
Mr. Brooks has for making any scientific statement
about the natural eye's behavior when
experimentally tested.
Hey, Douchebag! You're the only one who uses this ridiculous
terminology. Stop lying.
As to my "medical qualifications," I believe I've stated them: I have
none.
Otis, you're a sick old man. I think it's time you sought some
professional help. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| spammer |
| Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 9:13 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
| It's not his fault, he keeps falling down his "staircase" on his head. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Revival via MedKB.com |
| Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 1:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Neil, you were right and I apologize.
Otis is nothing but scumbag and I will work together with you too make sure
that everybody are know that he is a lyer.
Please you forgive my earlier attitude?
--
Message posted via http://www.medkb.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| otisbrown@pa.net |
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 9:38 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
This "Revival" is U34484@uwe -- and probably
not the original "Revival".
On Jun 3, 2:14 pm, "Revival via MedKB.com" <u34484@uwe> wrote:
Quote: Neil, you were right and I apologize.
Otis is nothing but scumbag and I will work together with you too make sure
that everybody are know that he is a lyer.
Please you forgive my earlier attitude?
--
Message posted viahttp://www.medkb.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Neil Brooks |
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 9:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jun 6, 7:38 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
Quote: This "Revival" is U34484@uwe -- and probably
not the original "Revival".
But you ARE a pathological liar (just like "Revival," et al).
Care to address THAT? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 11:02 pm |
|
|
|
|
On Jun 6, 10:38 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
Quote: This "Revival" is U34484@uwe -- and probably
not the original "Revival".
On Jun 3, 2:14 pm, "Revival via MedKB.com" <u34484@uwe> wrote:
Neil, you were right and I apologize.
Otis is nothing but scumbag and I will work together with you too make sure
that everybody are know that he is a lyer.
Please you forgive my earlier attitude?
--
Message posted viahttp://www.medkb.com
Otis,
Subject: Myopia prevention with plus lenses
Most young hyperopes do not wear any glasses to correct their
farsightedness. So they go throughout their entire waking life
accommodative excessively. Sometimes, 2,3, or even 4 diopters. This
is optically equivalent to a young child holding a book very very
close to their eyes. It is the same as taking an emmetropic human,
and suturing a -3.00 D lens on their eye all the time so they have no
choice but to see through it. Why so, then, don't these hyperopes
become more myopic (= less hyperopic)? If what you say about reading
distance being a critical factor in myopia development, as well as
excessive minus lens prescriptions, then your theory predicts they
should lose their hyperopia-- yet the vast majority do not.
Can you explain this observation? Because this is a major "chink" in
your argument about myopia development. Are you just going to remain
silent while the dam bursts around you? Or are you just going to give
us another cut and paste repeat of Raphaelson or Sterling Colgate
replete with old black-and-white photos.
People are watching while your true inability to provide a rational
defense of your therapy becomes more and more obvious. Even the
laypeople who read this forum notice the buzzards circling.
I had no idea that engineers behaved in such a way.
Best,
p. clarkii |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Neil Brooks |
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 11:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
RUN AND HIDE, OTIS!!
RUN AND HIDE!!!
PEOPLE ARE CHALLENGING YOUR FAITH AGAIN!!!!
OH, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooo!!! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Aug 29, 2008 11:17 pm
|
|