Re: Am I a more reliable source of information than Otis Brown?
- From: "Churie." <Sureshvatulasa@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 06:12:07 -0000
On Jul 19, 3:28 am, DarkProtoman <Protoman2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Am I a more reliable source of information than Otis Brown?
No not t all as you were the one who recommended Laser correction for
a twelve year old.
sci.med.vision@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Today's topics:
* Strange vision problem - 23 messages, 8 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.vision/browse_thread/thread/f9e3178db7cf2a17?hl=en
* EBMD question. - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.vision/browse_thread/thread/79baf84401f7746b?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Strange vision problem
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.vision/browse_thread/thread/f9e3178db7cf2a17?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 23 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 21 2007 8:54 am
From: "otisbrown@xxxxxx"
Dear DarkProtoman,
It is always good to be able to double-check your
prescription against the lens you are provided with.
It is also possible to reverse the OD and OS.
Dr. Leif Hertzog will be very supportive of your
desire to learn how to check in this matter,
and that you were able to detect a
techincal problem with the prescription.
Most ophthamologists support your ability
to learn about this subject.
Others (tragically) do not trust your
technical ability.
Otis
I AM amblyopic in my right eye; I'm myopic in both eyes. I'm seeing
Dr. Leif Hertzog, my opthalmologist, on July 11th. And, I do get a
huge increase in acuity; I can read stuff at longer distances than
before I swapped my lenses; I can read the "no parking" sign from 15ft
away now; I couldn't do that
On Jun 20, 11:58 pm, DarkProtoman <Protoman2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 20, 9:26 pm, p.clar...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jun 20, 2:23 pm, DarkProtoman <Protoman2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 20, 10:39 am, "otisbr...@xxxxxx" <otisbr...@xxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Dark,
The easiest solution is this:
Call the OD, or ophthamologist and ask him
if you are farsighted or myopic.
That will resolve the issue, pronto.
If the prescription is "positive", then you have
plus lenses.
A positive lens will bring sun's rays of light to a point.
A +1 to a point at 1 meter. You could hold the lens in
sun light and see if it forms a image of the sun at 1 meter.
If the light rays diverge (no image), then you have
a negative lens.
Hope this clarifies this issue for you.
Otis
On Jun 18, 5:27 pm, DarkProtoman <Protoman2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'e got this extremely weird problem: My refractive errors are as
such:
OS: +1.00D
OD: +4.50D
Now, my OD gave my, as you would expect, a -1.00D lens for the left
eye, and a -4.50D lens for my right eye. But the left eye only gets
slightly better, while I can't notice anything w/ my right eye.
But...when I swap the left and right lenses, my left eye becomes
20/20, and my right eye, while still far from that, gets a small
improvement. How can this be? Also, when I put the new left eye lens
on my right eye, and flip it backwards, aside from it needing a slight
power adjustment and a weird fisheye effect, my right eye is noticebly
improved. What's with this?
Thank you!!!!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I am myopic. I need minus lenses. My left eye is my good eye.
OK, then your prescription should be written according to proper
convention as:
OD: -4.50 sph
OS: -1.00 sph
the right eye is listed first, and the left eye last.
technically you are correct in that your uncorrected right eye is
really +4.50 with respect to proper focus, and your uncorrected left
eye is +1.00, and therefore you need minus lenses of the same power to
correct them, but convention holds that nearsighted people need minus
power lenses and thus the prescriptions are written that way always.
in the end, all prescriptions are written in terms of the power of the
lenses that are required to correct them.
As for your observations, some of them can be explained and others
can't. since your left eye is already pretty good without the lenses
on it, so when you place a -1.00 lens over it you might not notice a
big difference because it wasn't too bad to begin with.
And in younger people, if you place an excessively strong minus lens
over your eye, like in your case where you put your right lens in
front of your left eye, it might appear to make your vision even
clearer than having the proper -1.00 correction over it. In reality
your acuity shouldn't be improved-- it just makes everything look
higher contrast (darker and smaller). Some people usually like their
vision through an overminused prescription but if you wear it too long
it will give you eyestrain and headaches. Eye doctor try to avoid
overminusing their patients
What doesn't make sense is that putting the -4.50 prescription in
front of your right eye doesn't provide much improvement. It
certainly should unless you are amblyopic in that eye and you don't
use it much anyway. Or perhaps the prescription is incorrect.
Why not visit your eye doctor and ask for an explanation for your
questions?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I AM amblyopic in my right eye; I'm myopic in both eyes. I'm seeing
Dr. Leif Hertzog, my opthalmologist, on July 11th. And, I do get a
huge increase in acuity; I can read stuff at longer distances than
before I swapped my lenses; I can read the "no parking" sign from 15ft
away now; I couldn't do that before.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
== 2 of 23 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 21 2007 9:19 am
From: "Mike Tyner"
<otisbrown@xxxxxx> wrote
Others (tragically) do not trust your
technical ability.
Doctor: (hands cover paddle to patient) Cover your right eye for me.
(patient covers right eye and reads the chart)
Doctor: Now cover the other eye.
Patient: (reaches up and covers left eye with his hand) Now I can't
see
anything!
True story.
-MT
== 3 of 23 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 21 2007 10:36 am
From: "otisbrown@xxxxxx"
Ah, yes.
Ho, Ho, Ho -- good optometric laugh line.
Because SOME patients are stupid, and technically
inept -- you naturally ASSUME that all
patients are stupid and inept. And should
be treated that way.
Otis
On Jun 21, 12:19 pm, "Mike Tyner" <mty...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<otisbr...@xxxxxx> wrote
Others (tragically) do not trust your
technical ability.
Doctor: (hands cover paddle to patient) Cover your right eye for me.
(patient covers right eye and reads the chart)
Doctor: Now cover the other eye.
Patient: (reaches up and covers left eye with his hand) Now I can't see
anything!
True story.
-MT
== 4 of 23 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 21 2007 10:55 am
From: "Mike Tyner"
<otisbrown@xxxxxx> wrote
Because SOME patients are stupid, and technically
inept -- you naturally ASSUME that all
patients are stupid and inept. And should
be treated that way.
When you decide who I am, what I do and how I do it, please let me
know.
Some newsgroup participants are stupid and inept. Does that mean they
all
are?
-MT
== 5 of 23 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 21 2007 10:57 am
From: Neil Brooks
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 10:36:55 -0700, "otisbrown@xxxxxx"
<otisbrown@xxxxxx> wrote:
Ah, yes.
Ho, Ho, Ho -- good optometric laugh line.
Because SOME patients are stupid, and technically
inept -- you naturally ASSUME that all
patients are stupid and inept. And should
be treated that way.
Otis
Dear Uncle (scr)Otis:
As always, your hypocrisy astounds. YOU are the king of:
- invent a position held by a (fictitious or otherwise) eye doctor;
- extrapolate from that invented position to the presumed "standard
of practice" of ALL eye doctors.
Nobody else around here does that BUT YOU.
God, but you're an idiot.
== 6 of 23 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 21 2007 10:58 am
From: Neil Brooks
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 08:54:43 -0700, "otisbrown@xxxxxx"
<otisbrown@xxxxxx> wrote:
Most ophthamologists support your ability
to learn about this subject.
Others (tragically) do not trust your
technical ability.
Gosh, Uncle Otie.
On what basis do you make THAT claim.
Just some little tidbit that you pulled from your a$$?
Par for the course, sadly.
== 7 of 23 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 21 2007 11:29 am
From: DarkProtoman
On Jun 21, 10:58 am, Neil Brooks <neil0...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 08:54:43 -0700, "otisbr...@xxxxxx"
<otisbr...@xxxxxx> wrote:
Most ophthamologists support your ability
to learn about this subject.
Others (tragically) do not trust your
technical ability.
Gosh, Uncle Otie.
On what basis do you make THAT claim.
Just some little tidbit that you pulled from your a$$?
Par for the course, sadly.
What this Otis Brown guy's story anyway? He needs to be crucified
while getting a 10 gigacandela light shined through +100D lenses in
his eyes --w/ atropine eyedrops for good measure--...
== 8 of 23 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 21 2007 11:56 am
From: Neil Brooks
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:29:44 -0000, DarkProtoman
<Protoman2050@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 21, 10:58 am, Neil Brooks <neil0...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 08:54:43 -0700, "otisbr...@xxxxxx"
<otisbr...@xxxxxx> wrote:
Most ophthamologists support your ability
to learn about this subject.
Others (tragically) do not trust your
technical ability.
Gosh, Uncle Otie.
On what basis do you make THAT claim.
Just some little tidbit that you pulled from your a$$?
Par for the course, sadly.
What this Otis Brown guy's story anyway? He needs to be crucified
while getting a 10 gigacandela light shined through +100D lenses in
his eyes --w/ atropine eyedrops for good measure--...
You're okay, DarkProtoman.
Stick around. I'll buy lunch ;-)
== 9 of 23 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 21 2007 11:59 am
From: DarkProtoman
On Jun 21, 11:56 am, Neil Brooks <neil0...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:29:44 -0000, DarkProtoman
<Protoman2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 21, 10:58 am, Neil Brooks <neil0...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 08:54:43 -0700, "otisbr...@xxxxxx"
<otisbr...@xxxxxx> wrote:
Most ophthamologists support your ability
to learn about this subject.
Others (tragically) do not trust your
technical ability.
Gosh, Uncle Otie.
On what basis do you make THAT claim.
Just some little tidbit that you pulled from your a$$?
Par for the course, sadly.
What this Otis Brown guy's story anyway? He needs to be crucified
while getting a 10 gigacandela light shined through +100D lenses in
his eyes --w/ atropine eyedrops for good measure--...
You're okay, DarkProtoman.
Stick around. I'll buy lunch ;-)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Thanks! BTW, I'm just wondering, but what do you mean "you're okay"?
== 10 of 23 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 21 2007 12:30 pm
From: Neil Brooks
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:59:09 -0000, DarkProtoman
<Protoman2050@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 21, 11:56 am, Neil Brooks <neil0...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:29:44 -0000, DarkProtoman
<Protoman2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 21, 10:58 am, Neil Brooks <neil0...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 08:54:43 -0700, "otisbr...@xxxxxx"
<otisbr...@xxxxxx> wrote:
Most ophthamologists support your ability
to learn about this subject.
Others (tragically) do not trust your
technical ability.
Gosh, Uncle Otie.
On what basis do you make THAT claim.
Just some little tidbit that you pulled from your a$$?
Par for the course, sadly.
What this Otis Brown guy's story anyway? He needs to be crucified
while getting a 10 gigacandela light shined through +100D lenses in
his eyes --w/ atropine eyedrops for good measure--...
You're okay, DarkProtoman.
Stick around. I'll buy lunch ;-)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Thanks! BTW, I'm just wondering, but what do you mean "you're okay"?
That was a bit ambiguous. Apologies.
I meant that--having seen through Otis's lunacy so quickly--you're
clearly a rational, bright, and perceptive person.
We like that around here.
It takes more than a few of us to offset Uncle Otie's under-medicated
dementia.
So ... you're okay ... you fit ;-)
== 11 of 23 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 21 2007 1:28 pm
From: Dave Bell
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Neil Brooks wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 08:54:43 -0700, "otisbrown@xxxxxx"
<otisbrown@xxxxxx> wrote:
Most ophthamologists support your ability
to learn about this subject.
Others (tragically) do not trust your
technical ability.
Gosh, Uncle Otie.
On what basis do you make THAT claim.
Just some little tidbit that you pulled from your a$$?
Par for the course, sadly.
Are you saying that is not true, Neil? How can you speak for all
ophthalmologists, any more than Otis can?
Par for the course again, as the sad little cadre of Otis haters
attack
even *correct* and supportive statements, as pclarkii did earlier...
Dark Protoman, you'll just have to learn to live with the poor S/N of
this
group. By all means, tune out Otis' extreme and misleading views, but
you'll also have to learn to ognore the whiners.
Dave
== 12 of 23 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 21 2007 1:49 pm
From: Neil Brooks
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 13:28:28 -0700, Dave Bell
<dbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Neil Brooks wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 08:54:43 -0700, "otisbrown@xxxxxx"
<otisbrown@xxxxxx> wrote:
Most ophthamologists support your ability
to learn about this subject.
Others (tragically) do not trust your
technical ability.
Gosh, Uncle Otie.
On what basis do you make THAT claim.
Just some little tidbit that you pulled from your a$$?
Par for the course, sadly.
Are you saying that is not true, Neil? How can you speak for all
ophthalmologists, any more than Otis can?
Gee, Dave. Maybe it has something to do with all the hours that I've
spent conversing with the teaching ophthalmologists and the faculty at
several of the nation's leading optometry schools ... along with the,
literally, scores of MD's and OD's that I've seen in my life.
Ya' see, Ol' Davie Boy: you'll have to learn a thing or two about me:
1) I started on this forum wayyyy back when.
2) When I know something, I contribute.
3) When I don't know something, I keep my mouth shut.
4) I don't come here merely to bash eye doctors.
5) My dreams of becoming a commercial pilot weren't dashed by myopia.
I DO have vision problems, but I don't pathologically blame them on
some concocted story that gives me a devil to despise.
6) I follow logic, rational thinking, critical thinking, and evidence
to their conclusions. Not the reverse.
7) I don't use fear-mongering like a cult-leader would. I show people
erroneous logic, balls-out lies, mis-statements, evasions, and
half-truths. It's called "impeaching the witness's credibility."
8) I defy you to find one place where I offered anybody any advice
that caused them harm (see #3 above).
If you need/would like me to keep going, I shall. If you look beneath
all of what YOU call "noise," I've generated plenty of what you call
"signal" in my time.
You? You just hypocritally doing what it is you accuse ME of doing?
Got it. Thanks.
== 13 of 23 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 21 2007 1:52 pm
From: DarkProtoman
On Jun 21, 12:30 pm, Neil Brooks <neil0...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:59:09 -0000, DarkProtoman
<Protoman2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 21, 11:56 am, Neil Brooks <neil0...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:29:44 -0000, DarkProtoman
<Protoman2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 21, 10:58 am, Neil Brooks <neil0...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 08:54:43 -0700, "otisbr...@xxxxxx"
<otisbr...@xxxxxx> wrote:
Most ophthamologists support your ability
to learn about this subject.
Others (tragically) do not trust your
technical ability.
Gosh, Uncle Otie.
On what basis do you make THAT claim.
Just some little tidbit that you pulled from your a$$?
Par for the course, sadly.
What this Otis Brown guy's story anyway? He needs to be crucified
while getting a 10 gigacandela light shined through +100D lenses in
his eyes --w/ atropine eyedrops for good measure--...
You're okay, DarkProtoman.
Stick around. I'll buy lunch ;-)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Thanks! BTW, I'm just wondering, but what do you mean "you're okay"?
That was a bit ambiguous. Apologies.
I meant that--having seen through Otis's lunacy so quickly--you're
clearly a rational, bright, and perceptive person.
We like that around here.
It takes more than a few of us to offset Uncle Otie's under-medicated
dementia.
So ... you're okay ... you fit ;-)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yeah, the first one of his responses to my question said I need a
+1.00D lens OS; +4.50D OD. WTF?!!!!? That'd make my vision twice as
worse!!!! I don't need to be tripping over my feet 24/7!!!!!
The OD DID say why he gave me minus lenses...b/c it corrects the
refractive error. Unlike the "Donder's theory" Otis apparently
subscribes to, which would probably get me killed w/in an hour of
recieving my lenses. I'd probably walk into a bus...
== 14 of 23 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 21 2007 1:56 pm
From: DarkProtoman
On Jun 20, 10:39 am, "otisbr...@xxxxxx" <otisbr...@xxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Dark,
The easiest solution is this:
Call the OD, or ophthamologist and ask him
if you are farsighted or myopic.
That will resolve the issue, pronto.
If the prescription is "positive", then you have
plus lenses.
A positive lens will bring sun's rays of light to a point.
A +1 to a point at 1 meter. You could hold the lens in
sun light and see if it forms a image of the sun at 1 meter.
If the light rays diverge (no image), then you have
a negative lens.
Hope this clarifies this issue for you.
Otis
On Jun 18, 5:27 pm, DarkProtoman <Protoman2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'e got this extremely weird problem: My refractive errors are as
such:
OS: +1.00D
OD: +4.50D
Now, my OD gave my, as you would expect, a -1.00D lens for the left
eye, and a -4.50D lens for my right eye. But the left eye only gets
slightly better, while I can't notice anything w/ my right eye.
But...when I swap the left and right lenses, my left eye becomes
20/20, and my right eye, while still far from that, gets a small
improvement. How can this be? Also, when I put the new left eye lens
on my right eye, and flip it backwards, aside from it needing a slight
power adjustment and a weird fisheye effect, my right eye is noticebly
improved. What's with this?
Thank you!!!!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Uh...myopic is nearsighted. Your eyes are too strong, causing them to
focus in front of the retina; they need a diverging lens --minus
diopter-- to weaken them, allowing them to focus on the retina.
Farsightedness is the reverse of the above.
== 15 of 23 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 21 2007 3:28 pm
From: Dave Bell
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Neil Brooks wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 08:54:43 -0700, "otisbrown@xxxxxx"
<otisbrown@xxxxxx> wrote:
Most ophthamologists support your ability
to learn about this subject.
Others (tragically) do not trust your
technical ability.
Are you saying that is not true, Neil? How can you speak for all
ophthalmologists, any more than Otis can?
Gee, Dave. Maybe it has something to do with all the hours that I've
spent conversing with the teaching ophthalmologists and the faculty at
several of the nation's leading optometry schools ... along with the,
literally, scores of MD's and OD's that I've seen in my life.
Ya' see, Ol' Davie Boy: you'll have to learn a thing or two about me:
Bunch of answers to questons I didn't ask deleted...
The statement by Otis still stands:
While most ODs support patients' abilities to learn about their
condition,
there are a few who do not. I would say the case of the gentleman who
was
"fired" by his cataract surgeon, for quesioning the choice of implant,
would support that claim.
My comment, while admittedly adding to the noise, was that you jumped
on
Otis' correct and true statement, painting it with the same tarry
brush
you use when he is indeed wrong. Similarly, when he stated that Dr,
Judy
was correct, pclarkii had to jump in and bad-mouth him,
These are examples of what I termed "ad hominem" attacks: derogatory
comments made on the basis of *who said it*, not *what he said*.
Once again, I find myself mud-wrestling with pigs...
== 16 of 23 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 21 2007 5:12 pm
From: Neil Brooks
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 15:28:53 -0700, Dave Bell
Once again, I find myself mud-wrestling with pigs...
'Cept the difference here is: you're mud-wrestling with the ones who
DON'T HURT anybody.
Your choice of sides confounds me.
== 17 of 23 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 21 2007 5:30 pm
From: Dave Bell
Neil Brooks wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 15:28:53 -0700, Dave Bell
Once again, I find myself mud-wrestling with pigs...
'Cept the difference here is: you're mud-wrestling with the ones who
DON'T HURT anybody.
Your choice of sides confounds me.
Of course it does! That's because you won't acknowledge that your
blather about Otis is serving nothing except your own ego.
== 18 of 23 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 21 2007 6:05 pm
From: Neil Brooks
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 17:30:54 -0700, Dave Bell
<dbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Neil Brooks wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 15:28:53 -0700, Dave Bell
Once again, I find myself mud-wrestling with pigs...
'Cept the difference here is: you're mud-wrestling with the ones who
DON'T HURT anybody.
Your choice of sides confounds me.
Of course it does! That's because you won't acknowledge that your
blather about Otis is serving nothing except your own ego.
I believe we've already covered the "Ever seen double for any
substantial length of time, Dave?" question, so ... meanwhile ...
either take your OWN advice and kill-file me OR ... piss off.
If you think it's about my ego, then--again--you haven't been stuck
with double vision (Yes, Dan, I know YOU have).
If you think preying on adolescents (those on "the threshold") is
cool, then YOU (Mr. I Adopt Former Soviet Block Children) and I have
different views about kids, and about society's need to protect them
from predators--older men who, themselves, are at a (very different)
"threshold."
I think I'm done with you. Take care now.
Buh-bye.
== 19 of 23 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 21 2007 6:07 pm
From: Dan Abel
In article <QKEei.2786$vi5.2281@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Dave Bell <dbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Neil Brooks wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 15:28:53 -0700, Dave Bell
Once again, I find myself mud-wrestling with pigs...
'Cept the difference here is: you're mud-wrestling with the ones who
DON'T HURT anybody.
Your choice of sides confounds me.
Of course it does! That's because you won't acknowledge that your
blather about Otis is serving nothing except your own ego.
Of course it does! That's because you won't acknowledge that your
blather about Neil is serving nothing except your own ego.
== 20 of 23 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 21 2007 6:37 pm
From: "MsBrainy via MedKB.com"
Dave Bell wrote:
Once again, I find myself mud-wrestling with pigs...
Dave, if you don't want to mud-wrestle with pigs, then don't... it's
your
choice, nobody is forcing you to jump in to the puddle, so don't
complain.
You are doing exactly the same thing you accuse others of doing. It's
just
your choice of side in this never-ending debate that is puzzling...
--
MsBrainy
Message posted via MedKB.com
http://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/vision/200706/1
== 21 of 23 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 21 2007 7:25 pm
From: Dr Judy
On Jun 21, 4:52 pm, DarkProtoman <Protoman2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 21, 12:30 pm, Neil Brooks <neil0...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:59:09 -0000, DarkProtoman
<Protoman2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 21, 11:56 am, Neil Brooks <neil0...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:29:44 -0000, DarkProtoman
<Protoman2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 21, 10:58 am, Neil Brooks <neil0...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 08:54:43 -0700, "otisbr...@xxxxxx"
<otisbr...@xxxxxx> wrote:
Most ophthamologists support your ability
to learn about this subject.
Others (tragically) do not trust your
technical ability.
Gosh, Uncle Otie.
On what basis do you make THAT claim.
Just some little tidbit that you pulled from your a$$?
Par for the course, sadly.
What this Otis Brown guy's story anyway? He needs to be crucified
while getting a 10 gigacandela light shined through +100D lenses in
his eyes --w/ atropine eyedrops for good measure--...
You're okay, DarkProtoman.
Stick around. I'll buy lunch ;-)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Thanks! BTW, I'm just wondering, but what do you mean "you're okay"?
That was a bit ambiguous. Apologies.
I meant that--having seen through Otis's lunacy so quickly--you're
clearly a rational, bright, and perceptive person.
We like that around here.
It takes more than a few of us to offset Uncle Otie's under-medicated
dementia.
So ... you're okay ... you fit ;-)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yeah, the first one of his responses to my question said I need a
+1.00D lens OS; +4.50D OD. WTF?!!!!? That'd make my vision twice as
worse!!!! I don't need to be tripping over my feet 24/7!!!!!
In Otis defense (never thought I would type that), you did state your
refractive error was +1.00 and +4.50 which would be corrected with
plus lense. Although I have no idea what Otis meant by " according to
Donder's theory".
Dr Judy
The OD DID say why he gave me minus lenses...b/c it corrects the
refractive error. Unlike the "Donder's theory" Otis apparently
subscribes to, which would probably get me killed w/in an hour of
recieving my lenses. I'd probably walk into a bus...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
== 22 of 23 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 21 2007 8:05 pm
From: "MsBrainy via MedKB.com"
DarkProtoman wrote:
I'e got this extremely weird problem: My refractive errors are as
such:
OS: +1.00D
OD: +4.50D
Is this YOUR determination of your refractive error, or is it the Rx
written
by your optomerist?
Now, my OD gave my, as you would expect, a -1.00D lens for the left
eye, and a -4.50D lens for my right eye.
I suspect there is a matter of terminology here. You stated that you
are
myopic. It seems that you determined a "refractive error" as the
negative of
the prescription, which (apparently according to your way of thinking)
will
zero your error and thus correct it. My understanding is that this is
not
the conventional way of expressing refractive error, but what do I
know, I am
not an optometrist. Anyway, I believe that this is the source of the
confusion here.
But the left eye only gets
slightly better, while I can't notice anything w/ my right eye.
But...when I swap the left and right lenses, my left eye becomes
20/20, and my right eye, while still far from that, gets a small
improvement. How can this be? Also, when I put the new left eye lens
on my right eye, and flip it backwards, aside from it needing a slight
power adjustment and a weird fisheye effect, my right eye is noticebly
improved. What's with this?
This swapping and flipping stuff is even more confusing... If your
glasses do
not give you the needed vision correction, obviously something is
wrong
despite all the optometrist "assurances". It's possible that the
glasses fit
the Rx, but the Rx is wrong to begin with. IMHO you need a new
(perhaps
independent) vision exam. Again, I am not an optometrist.
Thank you!!!!
--
MsBrainy
Message posted via MedKB.com
http://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/vision/200706/1
== 23 of 23 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 21 2007 8:18 pm
From: Dave Bell
MsBrainy via MedKB.com wrote:
Dave Bell wrote:
Once again, I find myself mud-wrestling with pigs...
Dave, if you don't want to mud-wrestle with pigs, then don't... it's your
choice, nobody is forcing you to jump in to the puddle, so don't complain.
You are doing exactly the same thing you accuse others of doing. It's just
your choice of side in this never-ending debate that is puzzling...
I was indeed lecturing myself about wrestling pigs. High time I gave
up.
But I'm not really taking sides, you see. I'd would simply prefer to
see
the vacuous bitching silenced. I note that I don't see much in the way
of similar attacks *from Otis*. He may be wrong, and arguably giving
harmful advice, but he doesn't commonly engage in the kind of slurs
the
"other side" does.
Dave
==============================================================================
TOPIC: EBMD question.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.vision/browse_thread/thread/79baf84401f7746b?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 21 2007 6:28 pm
From: Crumb
On Jun 20, 3:48 pm, Dr Judy <mpac...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 20, 12:04 am, Crumb <machine_n...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 18, 11:48 pm, Crumb <machine_n...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I've ran accross a reference to EBMD (cogan's dystrophy) in the
Handbook of Ocular Disease Management which states, in reference to
corneal dystrophies:
"A dystrophy is a non-infectious, non-inflammatory defect secondary to
malnutrition or faulty metabolism."
and then goes on to mention several types of corneal dystrophies,
including EBMD.
This is the first time I've ever seen any reference to nutrition or
metabolism in this condition, though one can see a clear connection
between epithelial membrane disorders elsewhere in the body and
certain vitamins and minerals which have been shown to support and
heal them. One can also see how a defeciency in vitamin A could cause
symptoms which could aggravate corneal problems.
Is EBMD, as the book states, a disorder secondary to nutrient
defeciency and faulty metabolism?
Any thoughts on this?
Thanks
Anyone???- Hide quoted text -
Likely you got no response because no one thinks that EBMD is
secondary to malnutrion. And the Handbook doesn't say that either.
It gives a general definition of dystrophy in general, then describes
EBMD. Nowhere in the description of EBMD does it suggest the
condition is due to nutrient problems nor does it recommend
supplements or dietary changes as treatment.
http://www.revoptom.com/handbook/sect3i.htm
Dr Judy- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
So the dystrophy that is described as secondary to malnutrition or
metabolic disorder is a different type of dystrophy than those listed
as an example. They really got to correct that as it causes
confusion :-)
I figured the nutritional approach was a bunch of hooey.
The little light at the end of the tunnel was good while it lasted,
though.
Thanks for your reply
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "sci.med.vision"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.vision?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sci.med.vision-
unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.vision/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to
abuse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com?hl=en
Reply Reply to all Forward Invite sci.med.vision to Gmail
Choose Language
Auto
English (US)
English (UK)
Deutsch
Español
Português
Português (Portugal)
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Svenska
Norsk
Suomi
Dansk
Hrvatski
Magyar
Slovenský
Sloven? ina
Ti ng Vi t
Íslenska
Bahasa Indonesia
Català
eský
Eesti keel
Lietuvi
Român
Tagalog
Hebrew
Arabic
Malay
Latin
New window
Print all
Would you like to...
Add to calendar
Strange vision problem...
Thu Jun 21, 2007 8:54am
Sponsored Links
Canon 5D Deluxe Package
Dont Overpay For The Accessories 3 Lens 6gb Flash Case $5000 value
www.DigiCombos.Com
Better Eye Care Secrets
Learn How to Improve Your Vision & Relieve Eye Strain - Naturally!
www.Program-for-Better-Vision.com
Laser Eye Surgery
Ground Breaking Technology to safely improve your Vision!
www.phirozedastoor.com
Lumix DMC-FZ7 $274.95
Panasonic Lumix 6MP, 12X zoom Leica lens. Free shipping. $274.95
www.Amazon.com/Lumix6MP
OEM Priced Micro Optics
Micro prisms -Rt. Angle, Amci Roof Lenses-Achromat, Ball, Plano,
www.westportoptics.com
Optical System Design
ZEMAX: Powerful, Accurate Software for Optical System Design
www.zemax.com
Canon EF lenses
Canon EOS Pro Dealer.
New Low Prices on Many Lenses.
www.waltersphotovideo.co.uk
Visian ICL Official Site
Learn about an advanced alternative to laser vision correction
www.VisianInfo.com
More about...
Eye Care »
Eye Pain »
Eye Surgery »
Laser Eye »
Related Pages
Advanced Medical- FDA clears eye-correction procedure
Reuters - Jul 18, 2007
July 18 (Reuters) - Advanced Medical Optics Inc. (EYE.N: Quote, ...
About these links
« Back to "Groups"Remove label "Groups"Report SpamDeleteMore
actions...--------Apply label: New label...? Newer 138 of 170 Older
?
Use the search box or search options to find messages quickly!
You are currently using 157 MB (5%) of your 2878 MB.
Gmail view: standard with chat | standard without chat | basic HTML
Learn more
©2007 Google - Terms of Use - Privacy Policy - Program Policies -
Google Home
.
- References:
- Am I a more reliable source of information than Otis Brown?
- From: DarkProtoman
- Am I a more reliable source of information than Otis Brown?
- Prev by Date: Re: new to progressives - not happy
- Next by Date: Re: Am I a more reliable source of information than Otis Brown?
- Previous by thread: Re: Am I a more reliable source of information than Otis Brown?
- Next by thread: Re: Am I a more reliable source of information than Otis Brown?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
