Info from my eye doc

Hi,

Thought I'd write to my eye doc regarding all the barrage of tests I had.

Skimming over, I remember he suggested I had a fourth nerve palsy,
perhaps of recent onset if I hadn't noticed anything previously. What he
writes says that what they have actually seen is a tendency for my
left eye to be higher than my right eye. But he believes this to be
minimal and non worthy of management with prisms (depends how much
double vision Im getting, which in real life is none)

He says that with the Worth 4 Dots, I definitely see double vision but
that doesn't mean my visual system is being placed under stress.

With the Frisby Davis Distance test for steriopsis, he says that I don't
perceive fine depth on any of the stereopsis tests. He says that this
doesn't matter in the normal course of daily living as it's not
necessary for most tasks in life.

He has given me some information on my fusion with prisms etc.

He says that my horizontal prism fusion range for near is 10 prism
dioptres base out to 8 prism dioptres base in, and for distance is 4
prism dioptres base out to 2 prism dioptres base in.

He says my fusion range is not large and I have a tendency to breakdown
on my prism fusion range quite easily and this is all related to the
fact that I don't use my two eyes specificially together.

He also adds that he has done an electrical assesment of my eyes,
involving an ERG and VEP both of which were normal. He then did a
photosensitivity test which measrues the sensitivity to light for a
variety of frequences of flashing light which demonstrated that I was
hypersensitive and suggestive that I have migraine.

He concludes that he belives I am sensitive to light and have migraine.
I have a small problem with eye alignment which I should cope with but
if there was a problem, then I would consider prisms.

1) In what circumstances might you need to perceive fine depth? Is this
why despite being long sighted I perceive some signs as slightly blurry?

2) Any thoughts on those prism measurements?

3) Could migraine explain those intermittent eye issues I had?

4) Let me know any other thoughts you might have.

Cya
Simon

>He concludes that he belives I am sensitive to light and have migraine.

Wow, all those tests just to figure that out..
Anyway, both are readily and easily curable by the relief obtained
with rest methods. What you should know is this: it is a waste of your
time to describe and ponder over the many manifestations of imperfect
sight, as Dr Bates has advised. Instead you should ask not stupid
questions about various prism measurements of no worth to you, but you
should ask questions which pertain to the cure of imperfect sight, or
of the characteristics of Perfect Sight, e.g., how can I be enabled to
see the white halos, and what can I do to aid my imagination? That is
a valuable question that will bring a real enlightenment.

Zetsu wrote:
>> He concludes that he belives I am sensitive to light and have migraine.
>
> Wow, all those tests just to figure that out..

Aren't you that prick that everyone hates?

Perhaps you'd like to know what my vision disturbances were and why they
felt "all those tests" were necessary? You wouldn't be interested.
You're just interested in talking.

> Anyway, both are readily and easily curable by the relief obtained
> with rest methods. What you should know is this: it is a waste of your
> time to describe and ponder over the many manifestations of imperfect
> sight, as Dr Bates

Two words, **** off.

Your advice isn't welcome to my ears.

What is very remarkable is that tests are needed for this man's
physician to come to the conclusion that his patient is:

A) Sensitive to light
B) Has a Migraine

Now are both these things not surely already observable to the patient
in everyday life, if he has these problems? Why does one require a
doctor to tell oneself what he, by common sense, would already know?

Zetsu wrote:
> What is very remarkable is that tests are needed for this man's
> physician to come to the conclusion that his patient is:
>
> A) Sensitive to light
> B) Has a Migraine
>
> Now are both these things not surely already observable to the patient
> in everyday life, if he has these problems? Why does one require a
> doctor to tell oneself what he, by common sense, would already know?

Mmmm... such cliched self indulgent ignorant crap.

Tell me, how much familiarity do you have with my case history? I would
guess none. Do you know what symptoms I presented to the eye doctor? I
would guess you wouldn't.

And I presume you're aware of all the potential underlying causes of
visual disturbances and that to thorighly investigate a patient is
actually pretty good. I could have had MS or some other neurological
issue, you inconsiderate ****, you filthy piece of scum. How dare you
insinuate it is unnecessary to conduct such tests.

Are you aware that physically one of my eyes is higher than the other?
Of course, I guess if I imagine it to be otherwise then I can make it
disappear LOL!

You're a fruit!

There is nothing wrong with testing. It was merely a point of comedy
to have all those tests and come to such simple conclusions. It was
quite ironic.

But, testing your vision frequently is very advisable. Where did I say
otherwise, dear sir?

Zetsu wrote:
> There is nothing wrong with testing.

But you seem to think that too much testing shouldn't be done?

"Wow, all those tests just to figure that out.."

> It was merely a point of comedy to have all those tests and come to
> such simple conclusions. It was quite ironic.

You're a fool if that's your train of thought. It was actually quite a
complicated problem, so complicated not a lot of people (if any at all)
have described my serious of problems but it so happens that the
conclusion is quite simple. It's no comedy and you do not understand irony.

>
> But, testing your vision frequently is very advisable. Where did I
> say otherwise, dear sir?

"Wow, all those tests just to figure that out.."

You insinuate that things can be diagnosed simply.

Your ignorance and arrogance speaks volumes.

For the daft fool at the back trying to push medical advice, a couple
years back I experienced a sort of magnified goldfish bowl effect to my
vision where text was almost jumping off a page at me.

I wasn't quite sure what was happening but went to my optometrist, the
first one tried putting me in prism glasses but I wasn't sure so went to
another one who said that would be a bad thing.

See, not all opticians settle for glasses.

But here I had problems with the Mallet Near Fixation Disparity Test and
the Maddox Red Line test (which indicates prism issues), but because
there was no obvious cause and no other issues, I was referred to the
hospital who put me through a barrage of tests.

This includes checking the optic nerve, checking for neurological
issues, possibly MS, checking for migraines etc.

The MRI reveleaed demyleination on the brain but no other issues and MS
was ruled out while some of the other tests suggested a hypersensitivity
to light.

I still see you've failed to address my points.

On Mar 12, 1:40 pm, Simon Dean <sjd...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I still see you've failed to address my points.

And always will.

Simon, I'm sorry you still have these issues, and no apparent
resolution. I'm smart enough to know that your case is way too
complicated for me to offer anything but the best wishes for continued
improvement.

You've hit the nail right on the head with "Atchoo," though. I cheer
you on as you fend him/her/it off!

Neil

OK, I apologize.

Maybe this dispute is more over an unfortunate series of
misunderstandings than anything else - the things that I find funny
are different from the things you are amused by, but in any case there
was no offense intended and definitely, I was not trying t o imply
that thorough tests of the eye are unnecessary. In fact, I very much
hope that you someday find relief of your condition and that your
suffering should end.

However, even if one of your eyes is physically at a higher point
than the other, this does not mean you should be in such a despair.
You are just as curable as is Brooks, as is Dr Tyner, as is everyone
here who is willing to practice the methods of cure. The brain inverts
the picture given to it from the retina, so why will any new limit ave
to be imposed to the mind in your own case? Cannot the image be fused
just the same? The mind can adapt to anything, that is the crucial
thing.

There are echolocatists in the world who are able, by producing a
clicking sound, to form an image in their visual cortex with no
stimulation what so ever from their optic nerve.

Zetsu wrote:
> OK, I apologize.
>
> Maybe this dispute is more over an unfortunate series of
> misunderstandings than anything else -

Misunderstandings?

Lets see.

You come running into a conversation without asking questions, without
knowledge. You just don't care other than pushing your own agenda. You
don't have a "misunderstanding" because you have made no attempt to
understand.

> the things that I find funny are different from the things you are
> amused by,

Of which you have said on more than one occasion, you find it funny that
people can undertake tests to reach a simple conclusion despite how
complicated the issue might be.

I don't mean to be insulting, but you have a lot of growing up to do.

> but in any case there was no offense intended and definitely, I was
> not trying t o imply that thorough tests of the eye are unnecessary.
> In fact, I very much hope that you someday find relief of your
> condition and that your suffering should end.

Just like most of everyone else on the internet, you're too ready to
assume rather than ask questions. I am not still suffering these issues
but I am concious that the issues may return at some point in the future.


> However, even if one of your eyes is physically at a higher point
> than the other, this does not mean you should be in such a despair.

Again you assume. I am not in despair. As my eye doc said, it is largely
of little importance. Unless I experience issues in the real world, then
there's no concern.

> You are just as curable as is Brooks, as is Dr Tyner, as is everyone
> here who is willing to practice the methods of cure.

Ahhh. Bates.

Well, who says I need curing? Im merely quite curious as to what these
dioptre prism measurements mean and what this issue with fine depth is.

Tell me, does Bates talk about fine depth stereopsis?

> The brain inverts the picture given to it from the retina, so why
> will any new limit ave to be imposed to the mind in your own case?
> Cannot the image be fused just the same? The mind can adapt to
> anything, that is the crucial thing.

Yes. And it does. But surely even you can acknowledge there is a limit
to the fusion.

>
> There are echolocatists in the world who are able, by producing a
> clicking sound, to form an image in their visual cortex with no
> stimulation what so ever from their optic nerve.

So what? I dream at night, often without stimulation from my optic
nerve. But that doesn't mean that I am capable of seeing.