How to identify an incipient Detached Retina

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by otisbrown, May 20, 2007.

  1. Perhaps its because mypia and high myopia really seem to be two different
    beasts. Just being myopic is no indication that you will progress onward
    to being a high myope.
     
    Scott Seidman, May 21, 2007
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Dear 'Nature Blamer' ,

    "Of course, feel free to carp about the perils of myopia. Nobody
    wants
    to be myopic, or hyperopic for that matter. We all want our children
    to be perfect in every way. Somehow nature gets in the way of a good
    plan. As I recall, you wanted to be a pilot, but your bad eye genes
    spoiled those plans. "

    The myopic blur that surrounds your pathetically ignorant mentality is
    beyond belief. Allow me to invite some Zen into your mind; Please read
    carefully;

    "Allah! There is no god but He - the Living, The Self-subsisting,
    Eternal. No slumber can seize Him Nor Sleep. His are all things In the
    heavens and on earth. Who is there can intercede In His presence
    except As he permitteth? He knoweth What (appeareth to His creatures
    As) Before or After or Behind them. Nor shall they compass Aught of
    his knowledge Except as He willeth. His throne doth extend Over the
    heavens And on earth, and He feeleth No fatigue in guarding And
    preserving them, For He is the Most High. The Supreme (in glory)."

    Open your Eyes and See. Open your Mind and Think.

    - Hyuuga, Neji
     
    William Horatio Bates, May 21, 2007
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Brainy,

    More than you, I do PREFER STRAIGHT scientific
    answers concerning the dynamic behavior of a
    population of natural eyes.

    If I ask the question, "...is the natural eye dynamic,
    and will it always change its refractive STATE when
    I place a -3 diopter lens on it." -- then the STRAIGHT
    answer is in this blue-tint model of the FUNDAMENTAL EYE.

    This is in terms of measured refractive STATE, NOT in
    terms of assumed "error".


    http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html

    The animation is conceptually accurate, and is
    as straight an answer as you will ever get from
    pure scientific considerations.

    Just respect the natural eye as a dynamic system in the
    first place.

    Are you going to tell me that the natural eye is NOT DYNAMIC
    for some reason? Are you going to insist that the
    nature eye does NOT change its refractive STATE
    by -2 diopters (after six months) after I place
    a -3 diopter lens on it. Are you going to insist
    that the refractive STATE did not change at all?

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, May 21, 2007
    #23
  4. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    BrainLAT

    Dear Brainy,

    More than you, I do PREFER STRAIGHT SCIENTIFIC
    answers concerning the dynamic behavior of a
    population of natural eyes.

    If I ask the question, "...is the natural eye dynamic,
    and will it always change its refractive STATE when
    I place a -3 diopter lens on it." -- then the STRAIGHT
    answer is in this blue-tint model of the FUNDAMENTAL EYE.

    This is in terms of measured refractive STATE, NOT in
    terms of assumed "error".


    http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html

    The animation is conceptually accurate, and is
    as straight an answer as you will ever get from
    pure scientific considerations.

    Just respect the natural eye as a dynamic system in the
    first place.

    Are you going to tell me that the natural eye is NOT DYNAMIC
    for some reason? Are you going to insist that the
    nature eye does NOT change its refractive STATE
    by -2 diopters (after six months) after I place
    a -3 diopter lens on it. Are you going to insist
    that the refractive STATE did not change at all?

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, May 21, 2007
    #24
  5. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    a) you wouldn't know one if it bit you right in the Lithium;

    b) but, but, but ... you categorically refuse to GIVE a straight
    scientific answer
    ....then you'll be both dodging the REAL questions AND ... attempting
    to change the dialog and terminology to fit your theory. A sign of a
    weak and untenable argument, if ever there was one.
    Drifting off into irrelevance again. See:

    http://nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt
    Again: changing the vocabulary won't change the outcomes. They don't
    support your position.
    Wildsoet doesn't agree with you. I'd bet money that she would think
    you're deranged.
    Your hypotheses--even from an engineering standpoint--are faulty, as
    always.
    Back to your only refuge: a leading, loaded question. Uncle Otie?
    Why do you hate your niece, Joy? Why did you ruin her vision? Have
    you stopped beating your wife yet??
     
    Neil Brooks, May 21, 2007
    #25
  6. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Check the site. It's yet another retired engineer teaching/practicing
    medicine.

    These guys get awfully bored when they retire--'specially if they had
    hoped to be commercial pilots.

    Unfortunately, they make the rookie mistake of thinking that
    everything falls neatly within the discipline of engineering
    conventions. Sadly, it doesn't.

    Overwhelmingly, your sources ... um ... suck, Uncle Otie. But you
    never read anything scholarly, or anything peer-reviewed, or ... more
    broadly ... anything that disagrees with you (you're a disciple of
    faith, not science).
     
    Neil Brooks, May 21, 2007
    #26
  7. You have now enlightened me, and I find the number of philosophies you
    misunderstand to be astonishing.

    ***PLONK***

    Please extend me the small favor of posting under one identity, so my plonk
    finger does not become fatigued.
     
    Scott Seidman, May 21, 2007
    #27
  8. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Ah, I see. This is alt.zen.vision. I thought it was sci.med.vision.
    My mistake.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, May 21, 2007
    #28
  9. Dear Dr L,

    Subject: A House Built on Sand

    That the results of the present method of treating defects of vision
    are far from satisfactory is something which no one would attempt to
    deny. It is well known that many patients wander from one specialist
    to another, seeking vainly for relief, while others give up in despair
    and either bear their visual ills as best they may without assistance,
    or else resort to Christian Science, mental science, osteopathy,
    physical culture, or some of the other healing cults to which the
    incompetence of orthodox medicine has given birth. The specialists
    themselves, having daily to handle each other's failures, are scarcely
    better satisfied. Privately they criticize each other with great
    asperity and freedom, and publicly they indulge in much speculation as
    to the underlying causes of this deplorable state of affairs.

    At the recent meeting of the Ophthalmological Section of the American
    Medical Association, Dr. E. J. Gardiner, of Chicago, in a paper on The
    Present Status of Refraction Work, finds that ignorance is responsible
    for the largest quota of failure to get satisfactory results from what
    he calls the "rich heritage" of ophthalmic science, but that a
    considerable percentage must be attributed to other causes. Among
    these causes he enumerates a too great dependence on measuring
    devices, the delegation of refraction work to assistants, and the
    tendency to eliminate cycloplegics, in deference to the prejudices of
    patients who have a natural objection to being incapacitated by
    "drops."

    On the same occasion, Dr. Samuel Theobald, of Johns Hopkins
    University, noted a tendency to "minimize the importance of muscular
    anomalies" as an important cause of many failures to give relief to
    eye patients. Among cases that have come into his hands after glasses
    had been prescribed by other ophthalmologists he has often found that
    "though great pains had been taken to correct even minor faults of
    refraction, grave muscular errors had been entirely overlooked." From
    this fact and from the small number of latent muscular defects noted
    in the hospital reports which he has examined, the conclusion seems to
    him inevitable that such faults are in large measure ignored.

    Dr. Walter Pyle, of Philadelphia, laid stress on "necessary but often
    neglected refinements in examination of ocular refraction." "Long
    practice, infinite care and attention to finer details," he said, "are
    imperative requisites, since a slight fault in the correction of a
    refractive error aggravates rather than relieves the accompanying
    asthenopic symptoms." This care, he says, must be exercised not only
    by the oculist but by the optician, and to the end that the latter may
    be inspired to do his part, he suggests that the oculist provide
    himself with the means for keeping tabs on him in the form of a
    mechanical lens measure, axis finder and centering machine.

    Dr. Charles Emerson, of the Indiana University School of Medicine,
    suggested a closer co-operation between the ophthalmologist and the
    physician, as there were many patients who could not be helped by the
    ophthalmologist alone.

    The fitting o£ glasses by opticians is usually condemned without
    qualification, but in the discussion which followed these papers, Dr.
    Dunbar Roy, of Atlanta, said that the optician, just because he does
    not use cycloplegics, frequently fits patients with comfortable
    glasses where the ophthalmologist has failed. When a patient needs
    glasses, said Dr. Roy, he needs them when his eyes are in their
    natural or normal condition and not when the muscle of accommodation
    is partially paralyzed. Even the heavy frames used in the adjustment
    of trial lenses were not forgotten in the search for possible causes
    of failure, Dr. Roy believing that the patient is often so annoyed by
    these contrivances that he does not know which is causing him the
    roost discomfort, the frames or the glasses.

    Nowhere in the whole discussion was there any suggestion that this
    great mass of acknowledged failure could possibly be due to any defect
    in fundamental principles. These are a "rich heritage," the usefulness
    of which is not to be questioned. If they do not produce satisfactory
    results, it must be due to their faulty application, and it is taken
    for granted that there are a select few who understand and are willing
    to take the trouble to use them properly.

    The simple fact, however, is that the fitting of glasses can never be
    satisfactory. The refraction of the eye is continually changing.
    Myopia, hypermetropia and astigmatism come and go, diminish and
    increase, and the same adjustment of glasses cannot suit the affected
    eyes at all times. One may be able, in many cases, to make the patient
    comfortable, to improve his sight, or to relieve nervous symptoms; but
    there will always be a considerable number of persons who get little
    or no help from glasses, while practically everyone who wears them is
    more or less dissatisfied. The optician may succeed in making what is
    considered to be a satisfactory adjustment, and the most eminent
    ophthalmologist may fail. I personally know of one specialist, a man
    of international reputation, who fitted a patient sixty times with
    glasses without affording him the slightest relief.

    And even when the glasses do what is expected of them they do very
    little. Considering the nature of the superstructure built on the
    foundation of Donders. and the excellent work being done by leading
    men, Dr. Gardiner thinks the present status of refraction work might
    be deemed eminently satisfactory if it were not for the great amount
    of bad and careless work being done; but I do not consider it
    satisfactory when all we can do for people with imperfect sight is to
    give them eye crutches that do not even check the progress of the
    trouble, when the only help we can offer to the millions of myopic and
    hypermetropic and astigmatic. and squinting children in our schools is
    to put spectacles on them. If this is the best that ophthalmology can
    do after building for three-quarters of a century upon the foundation
    of Donders, is it not time that we began to examine that foundation of
    which Dr. Gardiner boasts that "not one stone has been removed"?
    Instead of seeking the cause of our failure to accomplish even the
    little we claim to be able to do in the ignorance and carelessness of
    the average practitioner, great as that ignorance and carelessness
    often are;in the neglect of cycloplegics and the refinements of lens
    adjustment: in the failure to detect latent muscular anomalies; in the
    absence of co-operation between specialist and general practitioner:
    would it not be wiser to examine the foundation of our superstructure
    and see whether it is of stone or of sand?

    Think for yourself.

    - Hyuuga, Neji
     
    William Horatio Bates, May 21, 2007
    #29
  10. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Ruh-roh. Starting to type AND sound like Elevator Boy. Tragic.
    [snip]

    Verbal diarrhea. DEFINITELY reminiscent of Uncle Otie.

    Welcome to sci.med.vision.

    For those of you who are new here: there's this thing called
    nearsightedness, or myopia. Nobody wants it, really. Most people
    would probably prefer perfect 20/20 vision at all viewing distances.

    Unfortunately, there's no method proven safe and effective for either
    reversing it or preventing it.

    Great strides are being made with antimuscarinics and with Atropine--
    neither of which has yet been proved totally safe or totally
    effective.

    Sadly, the rest is snake oil to one degree or another.

    Be careful out there.
     
    Neil Brooks, May 21, 2007
    #30
  11. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    *snicker*

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, May 21, 2007
    #31
  12. otisbrown

    Ms.Brainy Guest

    When I asked for statistical data, it was directed to you, AnonE-
    Muss. You said that Otis' risk statement (1 in 20 for -6D myopes) is
    not true. Do you know the rate for that group, or for any other
    group?

    Actually, the only place I found any data re retinal detachment risks
    was on the "sightwise" link given by Otis. Nowhere else. And I have
    wondered about it for sometime now. I believe the risk does not jump
    up at -6D, but probably increased gradually (but nor linearily) from
    no mypoia to higher degrees of nearsightedness. I also wonder about
    statistical data of second detachment in the same eye and in the
    second eye, as well of the risk following other eye surgeries. The
    only data I have found was re cataract surgery (I believe it's .25%).
    My detachment was a complication after a successful macular hole
    surgery (the hole closed, but the retina detached), however nobody
    ever mentions such cases, or at most they say that "rarely" the retina
    may detach. What the hell is "rarely"?
     
    Ms.Brainy, May 22, 2007
    #32
  13. otisbrown

    p.clarkii Guest

    do you know christine wildsoet? i do!

    this animation does not depict scientific answers-- it depicts a
    theory based upon animal studies. many people think that there is a
    period in early childhood where emmetropization influences human
    children-- approximately ages 5-8.

    why do you try to make more from this website animation than what it
    is? why do you act like emmetropization in human children supports
    your idiotic plus lens theory? this notion is understood and accepted
    by all eye doctors and it taught in optometry and medical schools.
    have you noticed that christine's lab is at the university of calif,
    berkeley? you know, where they crank-out class after class of "first
    opinion" eye doctors.

    otis, you are a laughable old fool.
     
    p.clarkii, May 22, 2007
    #33
  14. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Brainy,

    You can see the dislike of the Perkins report by
    the majority-opinion ODs on sci.med.vision.

    There were several posters who posted a "burst" of
    floaters.

    No one suggested that COULD BE preliminary
    to a detached retina. They all kept their mouth
    shut.

    You ask why I posted the site discussing this issue.

    Let us say that the person with the "burst" of floaters
    takes it seriously, and goes to a good ophthamologist
    who does this speciality.

    The OD checks for retina "pucker" (their word), and
    other issues. They stich the retina to the sclera,
    and the person does NOT develop a detached
    retina with major complications.

    Thus, while you hate the idea that I posted
    for the person's benifit -- that is why I did it.
    This issue SHOULD be public knowledge -- a
    reason for concern.

    To further respond:

    Otis> Yes, let use hear that AnonEmuss' statistics -- for
    comparison with the Perkins data.

    Otis> This is what Perkins spelled out in his paper.

    Brainy> I also wonder about
    Otis> Perkins stated that any intrusion of this nature
    can provoke a secondary detached retina. Although
    I think most ophthamologists are aware of this -- and
    should tell you so.

    Brainy> The only data I have found was re cataract surgery (I believe
    it's .25%).
    Otis> They should ALWAYS mention the risk of
    detached retina -- for any intrusive surgery. Why don't they.
    You should not have to ask.

    Brainy> What the hell is "rarely"?

    Otis> That is when they choose to ignore the threat, and
    fail to tell you about it.

    Just one man's opinion.


     
    otisbrown, May 22, 2007
    #34
  15. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Yes Neil, tell these people to ignore a burst of floaters.

    Tell them to ignore flashes of light.

    Tell them that "engineers" do not "care".

    In fact we do care about these issues, even as
    you give the public very bad advice to IGNORE these
    indicators.

    And you are not even an engineer. Have you
    received a high school diploma yet?

    Why should anone take you seriously. What
    are your qualifications EXACTLY?


    Otis
     
    otisbrown, May 22, 2007
    #35
  16. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Another divisive post from Otis "Aw shucks, I'm just trying to help"
    Brown.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, May 22, 2007
    #36
  17. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Ya know, Uncle Otie: the words you try to put in OTHER PEOPLE's mouths
    are no more intelligent than the ones that emanate from your own.
    ibid.

    You're a moron ... OR deeply disturbed.

    Or both.
    Ouch. That one really hurt.
    We'll put aside, for the moment, questions about who "anone" is....

    To answer your question, though: my qualifications are:

    That I'm a great deal smarter than you.

    That I know more about vision and eyesight than you.

    That I am willing to question my own suppositions AND learn from
    evidence-based medicine AND sources newer than the 1800's.

    That I'm logical.

    That I'm rational.

    That I'm honest.

    That I'm lucid.

    These qualifications set me apart from you. Please tell me if you'd
    like to go on.

    Otherwise, how about answering these questions:

    http://nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt

    Thanks.
     
    Neil Brooks, May 22, 2007
    #37
  18. otisbrown

    Ms.Brainy Guest

    Thanks for the link. It answers many of my questions.
     
    Ms.Brainy, May 22, 2007
    #38
  19. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Important to note: while the incidence of myopia AND the POSSIBILITY
    of detached retina ARE two realities, they are--sadly--only used as
    scare tactics by Otis who seems to think that the mere existence of a
    problem is, somehow, proof of his hypothesis.

    He also believes that the entire world of optometrists, opticians, and
    ophthalmologists sacrifice the eyes of their own children to maintain
    the Vast Ocular Conspiracy.

    Sadly, none of Otis's beliefs (once you get past the concept that
    myopia exists, and in large numbers in some part of the world) is
    supported by facts.
     
    Neil Brooks, May 22, 2007
    #39
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.