Odd visual effed

Mike Tyner wrote

What you are calling flare doesnt appear to be the effect I am getting.

And none of the official web sites on cataracts mentions flares either.

The bulk of my relos make it into their 90s and not one of them has ever had a cataract.

Nope, she was saying that I need to see a doctor so the doctor can work out why I am getting that effect.

She explicitly said it wasnt a cataract, tho it remains to be seen if that proves to be correct after an eye exam.

Made the appointment this am, he's away on a course for 3 days and is booked up for 3 weeks.

I am first in line for a cancellation, looks like it should be on Thursday.

 

Salmon Egg wrote

Presumably that he already had the best prescription.

Yes, and that the prescription is fine.

Yes, but I dont get the effect when I dont wear my glasses.

 

Its the only one we have available, provided by the state govt.

No problem, I can be pretty blunt myself.

Trouble is that I dont get any of the other symptoms usually seen with a
cataract,
and dont get that effect without the glasses on, or with a pinhole either.

Yeah, thats what I decided too after more thought.

Turns out the the optometrist is away for 3 days on a course, and the
appointments are backed up for 3 weeks too, so I first in line to get a
cancellation and they claimed that that should happen on Thursday.

Nar, its nothing like mine. Mine are full radial line which go right into the
bright spot itself,
just 3 of them in just one 90degree quadrant, and they arent there at all
without the glasses,
or with a pinhole. Surely they should still be there without the glasses if it
was a cataract ?

Not with mine which are full quite thick radial lines right into the bright spot
itself.

Mine is much closer to the other image posted on the newsgroup,
but without the blurring of the central spot, and only in one quadrant.

Sure, but thats all there is anyway.

Sure, but mine doesnt.

Yeah, thats what we did with the current prescription, 10 years or so ago.

Yeah, I should have mentioned the age. Dont have the other data
tho except that the prescription hasnt changed in a long time now.

Yes he does, and took photos only about a year ago when I had a different
problem with double images that went away when pressing on the top outer
corner of the frame. That effect went away quite quickly, in days after the
exam wherte he said that there wasnt any problem.

Yeah, tho the receptionist did say that what she called streaks are urgent.

She didnt say why.

Not getting any pain at all.

They arent really star bursts.

Mine gets WORSE with glasses, no sign of them at all without the glasses.

Surely the fact that I dont get the effect without glasses does tho ?

 

Salmon Egg wrote

If you arent counting PhDs, someone with a medical degree.

Yes, but they have PhDs.

Corse not, that would be willfully molesting a fossil.

 

Dan Abel wrote

Yeah, it can get complicated.

Did you test positive for the pancreatitus specific test ?

One obvious possibility is that one or other was a
misdiagnosis, or that you actually did have both problems.

Gallstones are very common indeed, a very high percentage of people
have them at autopsy after death, many have never had any symptoms.

It actually says

"Acute pancreatitis is usually caused by gallstones or by drinking too much
alcohol, but these aren't the only causes. If alcohol use and gallstones are
ruled out, other possible causes of pancreatitis should be carefully examined
so that appropriate treatment-if available-can begin"

And

"How is acute pancreatitis diagnosed?

Besides asking about a person's medical history and doing a physical exam, a doctor
will order a blood test to diagnose acute pancreatitis. During acute attacks, the blood
contains at least three times more amylase and lipase than usual. Amylase and lipase
are digestive enzymes formed in the pancreas. Changes may also occur in blood levels
of glucose, calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, and bicarbonate. After the pancreas
improves, these levels usually return to normal.

A doctor may also order an abdominal ultrasound to look for gallstones and
a CAT (computerized axial tomography) scan to look for inflammation or
destruction of the pancreas. CAT scans are also useful in locating pseudocysts"

 

No, there are others. DD (Doctor of Divinity) is common. DMA (Doctor
of Musical Arts) is not common, but is offered, along with the PhD, by
top music schools in the US.

 

Some more detail that I have since noticed.

The fact that I dont get the effect without the glasses may not be that significant.

Since I am short sighted, I have to be quite close to the LED to see it in focus without my glasses.

At that distance, I dont get the visual effect with or without the glasses.

Presumably it must be significant that I dont get the effect with the bright light quite close, say a foot away from the
eye.

I have also noticed that when the LED is say 8' away, if I screw up my eyes, the detail of the flares does change,
reducing the length of the flare that is vertical, down from the LED and to some extent detatching it from the LED
itself.

But that only happens when viewed thru the bottom of the quite large glasses lens.
I dont get any effect at all when the led is viewed thru the top third of the lens by
tilting my head forward, with the LED at the same distance from the eye.

Odder and odder.

Doesnt sound much like cataracts to me, cant see how a cataract would give those effects.

Sound more like a distortion in the lens that has developed or something, and the second
effect may suggest that the distortion in the lens is in the bottom part of the lens in the eye.

Presumably the optometrist will be able to see that distortion with the eye exam.

Pity in some ways that it isnt just some effect with the glasses lens that can obviously be replaced easily.

 

Don't know. Blood tests were abnormal, though.

It was finally forced through my thick head that they are often related,
so that I did in fact have both the first time.

They took out the gall bladder this last time. The surgeon said it was
full of stones and very scarred, so she figured it had probably been
causing problems for some time.

My blood tests were abnormal, but got better.

I had an ultrasound both times, and both times it didn't show much.

 

Salmon Egg wrote

There isnt any evidence that supports the possibility that it is a cataract.

I never said anything has to be done. It would certainly be desirable
to get rid of the visual effect I am getting if that is possible without
surgery etc but I am not proposing to get a new cornea if it say
turns out to just be a lens defect thats developed.

Even with night vision when driving where the effect with lights is very
noticeable, it would make more sense to drive with one eye covered
if it isnt feasible to fix the problem with a different glasses lens.

 

Dan Abel wrote

Yes, I was too careless with my use of PhD which is Doctor of Philosophy.

Even that title doesnt make a lot of sense with PhDs in science etc.

 

Dan Abel wrote

Presumably that abnormality was what is referred to below.

Yeah, not surprising given that gallstones are so common.

Dunno that they are related tho, certainly alcohol which is also mentioned isnt.

I havent bothered to do anything about mine. I dont get the
symptoms very often at all and they dont last long when I do.

I do get a problem with not being able to stand up for all that long
without a break but there is considerable disagreement about
whether that is the gallsones or something else. One characteristic
of it is that sitting in my usual armchair for say 5 minutes makes
the pain when standing go away. Most of the doctors have some
difficulty reconciling that with gallstones which are certainly there,
found with an ultrasound. The main reason I believe that its due
to the gallstones is because it feels exactly the same as the
pain I get when its the gallstones, tho when its due to the
gallstones, it doesnt go away when sitting in the armchair.

The other rather odd effect I got just one time was that when it
was due to gallstones the first time, I got a very odd effect where
sitting in a particular position with my feet up on the table in the
ER made the pain go away completely while in that position.

No one diagnosed that as gallstones that time and it took a couple
more due to gallstones that got the best GP to order the ultrasound,
after the dud had decided it was pancreatitus in spite of the test
saying that it wasnt and best GP clearly deciding that it wasnt
pancreatitus, tho he wasnt prepared to say that the dud GP
was off with the fairys, that was clearly what he believed.

Yeah, both pancreatitus and gallstones are episodal.

Thats surprising given what the surgeon found.

With mine, the gallstones stood out like dogs balls, completely obvious apparently.

 

Nope, they have a degree in pharmacology.

Not sure about them, pretty sure they mostly have engineering degrees.

Yeah, chemists end up in all sorts of other fields. I did too, ended up
in computing, essentially because the fancy machine I built for the MSc
involved a PDP8S used as a controller for a sampling CRO and I decided
in the late 60s that computing had a lot more future than physical chemistry.

 

If you look at the cite above, you can see that the gall bladder, liver
and pancreas are all hooked to the common bile duct, which drains into
the small intestine. If a gallstone gets stuck in certain places, it
will block the pancreas from emptying its digestive juices and they will
back up into the pancreas and cause pancreatitis. At least I think
that's how it works.

 

Dan Abel wrote

Yes, and I knew that already.

Sure, but that doesnt mean pancreatitus and gallstones
are related any more than say alcohol and pancreatitus is.

 

Mike is a very experienced optometrist. I seldom argue much with him.

To get more information. The information he's gotten says there is no
emergency.

That's the advice he's gotten, and that's what he's going to do. If it
is cataract, lack of treatment causes no problems. I was diagnosed with
cataract, no question, and it was several years before the doctor said
it was time for surgery. I've had the surgery in both eyes, and both
times, once the doctor said it was time, I got the next available
routine surgery time, which was several months in the future.

 

Dan Abel wrote

He is talking about a visual effect which is nothing like the one I am getting.

Since I now have an appointment with my optometrist, for Thursday,
I will make a jpg of what it looks like so we can cut to the chase and
will post that here when I have done that too.

I argue with anyone when the detail doesnt match what is actually seen.

On a Sunday when there was no optometrist to consult and
since the problem had been there for a couple of weeks at
least, it didnt seem like something that the ER would be
any help with and that was what the phone service said too.

I prefer to have a clear idea about the possibilitys before seeing
a medical professional, because that works better than just
rocking up as seeing what they say. You can ask more useful
questions about why they believe its a particular problem.

Thats not necessarily any big deal if it does turn out to be
a cataract because that is so easy for a medical professional
to diagnose, but like I said, I dont get any of the symptoms
that are normally seen with cataract and not one of the online
sources even mention the sort of visual effect I am getting
as something seen with cataracts.

Yeah, out waiting times are that long for a cataract too,
one of my neighbours has just had both eyes done.

 

To see if someone could come up with what the possibilitys might be.

Like I said in my original, its not something that is that easy to
google for and even with the word flares which I was not aware
of until it was mentioned here, that didnt help much and I still
cant find any official site that lists the visual effect I am getting,
let alone say what that is commonly caused by.

I posted on a sunday, no doctors available except the
ER and the phone service didnt suggest using the ER.

The other question that arose was whether it made more
sense to see the GP or an optometrist first. Since none
of the GPs apparently have much in the way of equipment
to look at eye lenses etc, its seems likely that an optometrist
is the way to go, because he should be able to tell me that
it looks like a problem that I need an opthalmologist for etc.

It turns out that there wasnt even an optometrist available,
he's on a course in the state capital and wont be back till
Thursday. He has a 3 week appointment backup. His
receptionist called my effect streaks and said that they
normally do prioritise people who have those, so she said
that I would get the first cancellation and then she rang me
yesterday to say that I had got an appointment on Thursday.

It doesnt appear to be that urgent, particularly given that
I had first noticed the effect a couple of weeks ago and it
isnt obviously getting worse and its just a visual effect,
no other effect that make it sound urgent.

The phone service did say that I should see a doctor
within 72 hours, but didnt have any objection to seeing
an optometrist when I asked which would be better.

They appear to be very conservative, presumably to protect their
arse, saying I should wear dark glasses when outside etc. I dont
even have any, and havent been outside anyway, its winter here.

But I had been out quite a few times in the couple of weeks
since I had first noticed some effect at night with car tail lights,
and hadnt had any downsides from doing that, so that sounds
too conservative to be bothered with.

Thats what I always intended to do, just wanted to get a
clear idea about the possibilitys first, and see what people
thought about the alternative of the GP or the optometrist.

Our optometrists are well qualified to tell people if they need
to see a doctor, and mine does have some deal with the govt
health service that saw him do a proper internal eye exam and
take some photos at govt expense when I had a different problem.

I dont have any insurance, we have a decent universal national health service in my country.

Using a GP does cost a copayment of about $15 or something, but thats
so small that I couldnt care less if it turns out that a GP is appropriate.

The last eye exam by the optometrist didnt cost me a cent, the govt paid for
it entirely, no copayment and since he does have the hardware to do it, and
the GP doesnt, it sounds like the optometrist is the one to see first given that
if it turns out to be due to something else entirely like the drugs I am on for the
heart stent, the optometrist will be able to tell me that I need to see the GP.

OTOH I did have a very comprehensive look at the professional
literature for the drugs I am on when I was first prescribed them
and there is no mention of any effect on vision with any of those.

 

Mike Tyner wrote

Thats just plain wrong. The visual effect I am getting
can certainly be seen with a lens defect in the eye.

And that would explain why I the visual effect
changes a little when I screw up my eyes as
well. Cant see why a cataract would get that effect.

And I dont see any effect at all without my glasses, or with a pinhole.

 

Salmon Egg wrote

You're wrong.

I didnt even say that its not a cataract, I JUST said that there isnt
any EVIDENCE that supports the possibility that its a cataract.

Mike's visual effect is nothing like the effect I am getting.

There isnt any evidence of any clouding of the lens.

In fact since I dont get the visual effect when not wearing the glasses,
you might care to explain how that could happen with a cataract.

I never said that.

Corse it could be something else when I dont get any of the
classic symptoms of a cataract and NOT ONE of the official
sites even mentions the visual effect I am getting with cataracts.

 

I was planning to draw the visual effect that I am getting, but it turns out to be
rather harder to draw with the electronic tools like Paint than I though it would be.

Is there a set of commonly seen visual effects that I can just select from ?