 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / October 2004nystagmus complicates fitting?
Dose nystagmus complicate fitting lenses and getting a perscription for somebody with myopia? Every time I go to get glasses I come home with glasses that are no better than what I had previously. I do this about every other year or so (in many cases I re-use the frames to save money). I finally just gave up going. My vision is such that I cannot read menus at fast food restaurants, I don't know the actual diopter or Snellen number. I actually think it is getting worse. I use reading glasses when I read or do computer work (bifocals don't work well for me because of my nystagmus, I find them hard to use), and my vision has goten no better, it's probably even a little worse. Despite the nystagmus, I do a fair share of reading, though it probably tires me out alot. I also have strabismus (without amblyopia or double vision) and I tend to read with my left eye only and see things at a distance with both eyes or just my right eye- lately I have been having more trouble seeing with both eyes together. I've periodically tried patching since I was a kid, but I keep getting headaches when doing this. Also, my left eye is much more myopic and uncorrected than my right eye. > Dose nystagmus complicate fitting lenses and getting a perscription for > somebody with myopia? Every time I go to get glasses I come home with [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I > actually think it is getting worse. Nystagmus doesn't complicate the prescription but is does limit your best corrected acuity, ie it limits how well you will see even with the best possible glasses. Nystagmus means your eyes constantly move and thus they never stay in any one spot long enough for you to see clearly. Nystagmus may be due to a problem with the central retina of your eyes -- the central retina does not function properly which both causes poor best corrected vision and the nystagmus. Do you know if you have another problem? If regular glasses are not working, you might benefit from a low vision assessment. Ask your eye doctor or family doctor for a referral to a low vision clinic. For more information about nystagmus and to talk to other people with the condition see: http://www.nystagmus.org/ For information about low vision and a listing of low vision assessment centres see: http://www.afb.org/Results.asp Dr Judy > I use reading glasses when I read or do computer work (bifocals don't > work [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > keep getting headaches when doing this. Also, my left eye is much more > myopic and uncorrected than my right eye. > Nystagmus means your eyes constantly move and thus they never stay in any > one spot long enough for you to see clearly. Nystagmus may be due to a > problem with the central retina of your eyes -- the central retina does not > function properly which both causes poor best corrected vision and the > nystagmus. Do you know if you have another problem? I have hypoplasia of the optic nerves. My retinas are normal, more or less. I'm familiar with nystagmus, though I have never met anybody else with the condition, I understand it is fairly rare. It seemed when I was a kid, a teen, I had better distance vision. > If regular glasses are not working, you might benefit from a low vision > assessment. Ask your eye doctor or family doctor for a referral to a low > vision clinic. I keep hearing about "low vision clinics", but I've never seen one. I have found eye doctors in general don't have much positive to say about my condition, that no additional treatment is necessary. I generally avoid going to a regular doctor, I'm otherwise young and reasonably healthy... and I just don't like them, and besides they cost money. > For information about low vision and a listing of low vision assessment > centres see: > http://www.afb.org/Results.asp I'll look into this. >> Nystagmus means your eyes constantly move and thus they never stay in any >> one spot long enough for you to see clearly. Nystagmus may be due to a [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > have found eye doctors in general don't have much positive to say about my > condition, that no additional treatment is necessary. There is no treatment for nystagmus. However, a low vision clinic may be able to provide you with magnifiers, telescopes, tinted lenses and so on to assist you in doing your activities. Dr Judy I generally avoid > going to a regular doctor, I'm otherwise young and reasonably healthy... > and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I'll look into this. "Dr Judy" <mpace99nospam@rogers.com> wrote in news:GOSdnZOH8Orj0PjcRVn- og@rogers.com: > There is no treatment for nystagmus. That's not strictly accurate, and there's a fairly substantial literature on the treatment of nystagmus. There are no treatments for certain patients with congenital nystagmus, and the worse the underlying visual problem is (i.e., BCVA if the eye were standing still), the harder it will be to treat the nystagmus. Often though, if you examine the actual waveform of the CN, there will be a "foveation period" where velocity of the eye movement goes to near zero. "Treatments" involve trying to make this foveation period longer. Many patients with CN have some sort of "null" position, where the motion of the CN is smallest, and the foveation period is longer. The patients often figure this out all on there own, and it will manifest itself as a head turn while viewing. That is, they use a head turn to place the eyes in a position where the nystagmus is damped and they see their best. Often, there is a CN null position at near viewing, so some CN patients will get their noses right up against their books. So, treatment often takes the form of using optical or surgical techniques to move the eye to its null position while allowing the patient to keep their head pointed straight and viewing at distance-- like base out prisms with a correction factor for the increased accomodation to take advantage of a null at near. Also, for some reasons contact lenses often damp CN-- possibly because of increased afferent activity from the orbital area. It also seems like removing the muscle insertions and tacking the EOMs back down might help--kind of like blank strab surgery. For acquired nystagmus, which is even more disturbing to a patient than CN, there are some pharmacological approaches, and there's even the dramatic introduction of botulinum toxin to the EOM's Bottom line-- sometimes you can slow the eyes down, and if the actual visual substrate is good enough to take advantage of this, the patient can see better. There are a few experts scattered about the country who help many nystagmus patients. If a patient with CN tends to get his nose right into his books, or exhibits a head turn, that's a pretty sure sign that the patient is treatable. If seen a number of cases where this made the difference between passing or failing the DMV vision requirements. Scott > There are no treatments for certain > patients with congenital nystagmus, and the worse the underlying visual > problem is (i.e., BCVA if the eye were standing still), the harder it > will be to treat the nystagmus. I have horizontal nystagmus. It's a very rapid movement of my eyes, in a very small amount, back and forth rythmicly, and I can't see it when I look in the mirror (but I can feel it if I put my finger on my eyelid). I'm told this is quite normal in a person with nystagmus. > Often though, if you examine the actual waveform of the CN, there will be > a "foveation period" where velocity of the eye movement goes to near > zero. "Treatments" involve trying to make this foveation period longer. > Many patients with CN have some sort of "null" position, where the motion > of the CN is smallest, and the foveation period is longer. Yes, I have a null position, and it's annoying. I have worked on trying to see with both eyes straight ahead, and I can, a little, but I have trouble reading this way- alot of trouble. Null position is annoying becaues I worry I will have neck problems later in life and this will affect my visual ability and comfort- I already have a long neck and some mornings I can wake up with a stiff neck. Perhaps I need a better mattress. > Often, there is a CN null position at near viewing, so some > CN patients will get their noses right up against their books. I do this alot, but I'm not sure if its myopia or nystagmus as the cause. > So, treatment often takes the form of using optical or surgical > techniques to move the eye to its null position while allowing the > patient to keep their head pointed straight and viewing at distance-- > like base out prisms with a correction factor for the increased > accomodation to take advantage of a null at near. I have zero interest in surgery, although prismatic glasses sound interesting and I suggested it to eye doctors, but every "eye doctor' I have been to seems disinterested. Most of them seem to know only a little about nystagmus, they see a case only a few times per year. I believe most doctors told me that prismatic glasses will weigh alot and that they must be made of glass (? not sure if I remember right). I don't want to have heavy glasses, but I might do it if it would improve my vision. > Also, for some reasons contact lenses often damp CN-- possibly because of > increased afferent activity from the orbital area. I used to wear contacts, and cleaning them was a big chore and they weren't cheap. >If a patient with CN tends to get his nose > right into his books, or exhibits a head turn, that's a pretty sure sign > that the patient is treatable. Yes, that's exactly what I do. I also have strabismus, but I have no idea how that interacts with my nystagmus. One thing that pisse me off is that I refuse to drive, and my dad is convinced that all I need is a little willpower and I'd be driving, and he always brings up the "super-crip" crap about how there are people much worse off than drive around- he has a friend with only one eye who drives, blah blah blah. I tell him I don't feel comfortable driving and that I have had too many near-misses, and to forget about me driving. He says I'm lazy, I disagree. "magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote in news:Eim9d.123400$as2.36255 @bignews3.bellsouth.net: > I have horizontal nystagmus. What city do you live in? Scott > What city do you live in? Near Orlando "magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote in news:l%v9d.124930$as2.44014 @bignews3.bellsouth.net: >> What city do you live in? > > Near Orlando The closest name I can point you to in terms of a specialist would be Ron Tusa, at Emory in Atlanta, but I'm sure you'd be able to find someone at Bascom Palmer who treats Congenital Nystagmus. > The closest name I can point you to in terms of a specialist would be Ron > Tusa, at Emory in Atlanta, but I'm sure you'd be able to find someone at > Bascom Palmer who treats Congenital Nystagmus. Where is Bascom Palmer? Why is the medical profession so ignorant of this that I cannot get a good perscription, or a straight answer, from an optometrist? I know its an orphan disease, but I figure an optometrist would at least know SOMETHING about it beyond "oh yeah, there is generally no cure... you see about as good as you ever will". I was going to this guy who claimed he was a low vision specialist, and that's what he gave me. I would just like a straight answer for once- and don't try and talk down to me, I have read up on this stuff, you can talk technical with me. THe more I study this, the more I think doctors are just inept by nature, they don't want to know anything out of their immediate field of expertise. Did you hear that actor John Ritter died from a ruptured aorta because the doctors thought he was having a heart attack for hours? Aortic ruptures kill more Americans than AIDS and many kinds of cancer, yet doctors mostly ignore it because they are brought up to think there's not much they can do for it- it's uninteresting. > orphan disease, but I figure an optometrist would at least know SOMETHING > about it beyond "oh yeah, there is generally no cure... you see about as [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > answer for once- and don't try and talk down to me, I have read up on this > stuff, you can talk technical with me. So in your reading, have you not found any reference to treatments? I found several with one Google search. There are "treatments" for nystagmus but none of them work very well, and most of them only work for some people, if at all. I believe you said you also had optic atrophy? Isn't it possible that the low vision specialist was shooting straight when he said nothing cures it? Some of these treatments might reduce your nystagmus but that isn't saying they will improve your acuity. Is cosmetic improvement all you want? Prism glasses can help if you have a "null point." If you experience less motion in one position of gaze, you probably already seek it out with a head turn or tilt. If you don't have a null point, then prism glasses are pretty worthless. Another treatment that hasn't been mentioned in this thread (or I missed it) is rigid contact lenses. For some with CN, the little bit of lens sensation from this type of contact lens seems to reduce the motion of nystagmus. Neurontin, anticonvulsants, and a glass of beer all have been suggested as medical treatments. They may work somewhat for acquired nystagmus, but usually little or no effect on the congenital varieties. Finally, there are reports in the older literature of success with biofeedback, using spectacle-mounted infrared sensors that convert your eye motion into an audible signal. Supposedly this may help you learn to control the motion. -MT > There are "treatments" for nystagmus but none of them work very well, and > most of them only work for some people, if at all. I believe you said you > also had optic atrophy? Isn't it possible that the low vision specialist was > shooting straight when he said nothing cures it? No "atrophy" about it... I was born with hypoplastic optic nerves. Last time I went for new glasses, I asked the optometrist when he looked at the back of my retina, I asked him about the optic nerves and he said "they look a little small". I was born also with a ventricular septal defect of the heart, which was repaired. I have no idea what kind of "syndrome" that would fall under, but my guess is there are other people out there with similar stories. My IQ was above average as a child and I don't have webbed toes or fingers (though I do have small epicanthic folds, and nobody in my immediate family has this). > Some of these treatments might reduce your nystagmus but that isn't saying > they will improve your acuity. Is cosmetic improvement all you want? No, I want better acuity. I don't like having to turn my head when I read or get so close to many things. > Prism glasses can help if you have a "null point." If you experience less > motion in one position of gaze, you probably already seek it out with a head > turn or tilt. If you don't have a null point, then prism glasses are pretty > worthless. I have a null point, one for each eye depending on which eye I am using (I also have strabismus). > Neurontin, anticonvulsants, and a glass of beer all have been suggested as > medical treatments. They may work somewhat for acquired nystagmus, but > usually little or no effect on the congenital varieties. I used to take depakene (valproate) several years ago in my early 20's (I'm 28 now)... I was taking it for headaches and psychiatric problems. It seemed to do something to my eyes- my dad remarked about my eyes moving around less. Maybe he was just trying to say something nice, who knows. Nowdays I don't take it because I don't have health insurance and getting a needle in the arm every couple of months sucked just to get some pills and be told "your liver is fine" (well, of course it's fine, I never drink booze and I'd not taking a high enough dosage to do anything). Oh, and depakene made me gain alot of weight and if I ever had acid reflux that crap would do nasty stuff to the throat. I am surprised there has been so little research into drugs to treat nystagmus. Surely some chemical out there would improve a condition like this. >> There are "treatments" for nystagmus but none of them work very well, and >> most of them only work for some people, if at all. I believe you said you [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > read > or get so close to many things. Since you don't want to turn your head or hold things close but want what both those strategies will deliver (better acuity), your low vision specialists are right in saying nothing can be done for you. The first requirement for sucess with low vision treatment is that the patient accept that he/she has a problem that conventional vision correction cannot help and be willing to try unconventional things like turning a head or holding things close. If what you want is normal vision with normal correction, it cannot be done. BTW, what is your best corrected acuity? You mentioned driving and obtaining a driver's license requires pretty good vision; if your vision is not that bad and you want better, your doctors again will be telling you it can't be done. Dr Judy >> Prism glasses can help if you have a "null point." If you experience less >> motion in one position of gaze, you probably already seek it out with a [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > nystagmus. Surely some chemical out there would improve a condition like > this. > Since you don't want to turn your head or hold things close but want what > both those strategies will deliver (better acuity), your low vision > specialists are right in saying nothing can be done for you. So prisms in glasses will do nothing for me? I was under the impresion they would. > The first requirement for sucess with low vision treatment is that the > patient accept that he/she has a problem that conventional vision correction > cannot help and be willing to try unconventional things like turning a head > or holding things close. I'm getting tired of turning my head, it is frustrating to know you are using a system your brain cobbled together, rather than really seeing like everybody else. I cannot even read with my right eye. I see words, but they just don't go into my brain- it's like I cannot focus on words- at least I cannot read with my right eye closeup (give me a large sign a few feet away, and sure, I could read it). Does that sound wierd? I use my left eye for reading. I can watch TV with my right eye. Sometimes I can see with both eyes, like for driving a car, playing a game, occasionally watching TV. But if there's any text in the game at all, I often find myself going into a "reading mode" and getting up close to the screen. ( BTW, one cool thing about PC games now days is 3D sound. You can put on a pair of headphones and you can hear things comming from all around you- gunshots, monsters, etc.. I must have a very developed sense of hearing because I find that when a game has this, it is often a very important "cue" as to where things are, so much so that turning this off makes many games unplayable). As I said, I have been playing videogames ever since I was a kid, in fact this is something that the opthamologists I went to when I was a small child suggested. I have practiced driving in real life but sometimes I feel like there are "blind spots" in my vision. Sometimes my eyes feel tired and if cars are moving around me, I start panicking (I once swerved when a jogger "popped out of nowhere", and I nearly hit another car to my left- after that, I just haven't had the courage to try driving again). I feel like things are moving too quickly for me to follow them (I wish sometimes there were a "pause" key). Florida does not allow bioptics, nor would I want to wear them anyways, as I believe they would be a visual distraction. > If what you want is normal vision with normal > correction, it cannot be done. But can my vision be improved any, that is what I really want to know. Can I live and learn to read without turning my head? I don't like living like this. > BTW, what is your best corrected acuity? You mentioned driving and > obtaining a driver's license requires pretty good vision; if your vision is > not that bad and you want better, your doctors again will be telling you it > can't be done. I got a learner's permit in Oklahoma where vision requirements are pretty lax (I think it is 20/100... here in Florida it is 20/70, 20/40 in both eyes, I believe- it is so darn confusing to figure out). During highschool, I was in a special PE program and did not take drivers ed. In college (I went to a community college), I paid for some drivers education classes, and my driving instructor said he believed I shouldn't be driving, so I just quit driving- soon after I moved home back to Florida with my parents (I was living with my extended kin in Oklahoma). I don't know if that sank in and became a self-fullfilling prophecy, maybe he was just telling the truth. I really don't know what my vision acuity is- I don't remember what my perscription is (it is not too bad though, I believe it is less than my parents, who have something like 7 diopters?). All I know is I cannot read menus at fast food restaurants standing behind a counter, and I cannot read many street signs when riding in a car. Using a printed out Snellen eye chart- my vision I believe is around 20/70 or so in my worst eye- and that's with closing the other eye and turning my head- I cannot read much beyond the first couple of lines without doing this. But I may be doing the test wrong. Last time I went to the eye doctor and did the whole "is this better... or this one" approach, the perscription I ended up with, was just as lousy as before. It didn't improve my vision at all. So my vision has been consistently bad for over 6 years or so. I went to a guy that claimed to be a "low vision specialist", he was an old cracker guy who had worked as optometrist in Korea in the war. He didn't do much for me really, and wouldn't tell me if my vision was good enough to drive or not. So I just started going to the optometrist at these mall glasses stores. Last time I went, I made it clear to the optometrist that I had nystagmus, that for optimal vision, I had to turn my head to see well to even read the eye chart. He discovered I have a v-syndrome, which I never knew I had, as well. But guess what... the perscription he gave me was hardly different than what the other optometrist gave me. I use seperate reading glasses for near-work and the computer, too. Sometimes they seem too blurry, especially for my left eye. Maybe I dont' really need reading glasses. I sit about arm's length from the screen. >> Since you don't want to turn your head or hold things close but want what >> both those strategies will deliver (better acuity), your low vision >> specialists are right in saying nothing can be done for you. > > So prisms in glasses will do nothing for me? I was under the impresion > they would. If turning your head helps, prism might help too (you would need to see try it to know). However, in an earlier post I thought you said you didn't want prisms either. Prisms would not deliver better vision than turning your head does. >> The first requirement for sucess with low vision treatment is that the >> patient accept that he/she has a problem that conventional vision [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > least I cannot read with my right eye closeup (give me a large sign a few > feet away, and sure, I could read it). Does that sound wierd? You mentioned strabismus, is your right eye also amblyopic (lazy)? If so, you will not be able to see detail with it. snip >> If what you want is normal vision with normal >> correction, it cannot be done. > > But can my vision be improved any, that is what I really want to know. > Can I live and learn to read without turning my head? I don't like living > like this. Prism would be the only alternative to head turn. Contact your local Association for the Blind and get a referral to a good low vision clinic. >> BTW, what is your best corrected acuity? You mentioned driving and >> obtaining a driver's license requires pretty good vision; if your vision [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > before. It didn't improve my vision at all. So my vision has been > consistently bad for over 6 years or so. Since your vision is limited by the nystagmus, not glasses prescription. Your "best corrected" vision is reduced and glasses will not improve it. Prism glasses might make it as good as it is when you turn your head. Dr Judy >>> Since you don't want to turn your head or hold things close but want what >>> both those strategies will deliver (better acuity), your low vision [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >Prism would be the only alternative to head turn. Contact your local >Association for the Blind and get a referral to a good low vision clinic. NOoooooo... as a complete bystander here who has watched this whole discussion, I've been persuaded that this guy needs to go to a specialist and not a low vision clinic. I hope he does and I hope he tells us how he got on. Ann >>> BTW, what is your best corrected acuity? You mentioned driving and >>> obtaining a driver's license requires pretty good vision; if your vision [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Dr Judy snip >>Prism would be the only alternative to head turn. Contact your local >>Association for the Blind and get a referral to a good low vision clinic. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > specialist and not a low vision clinic. I hope he does and I hope he > tells us how he got on. A low vision clinic specializes in people with sub normal vision and the doctors there will have experience with nystagmus and prism treatment. Dr Judy > Ann > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> >>Dr Judy >snip >>>Prism would be the only alternative to head turn. Contact your local [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >A low vision clinic specializes in people with sub normal vision and the >doctors there will have experience with nystagmus and prism treatment. That isn't the opinion of everyone on list though is it? I have been persuaded that many don't know very much about nystagmus. Ann > >A low vision clinic specializes in people with sub normal vision and the > >doctors there will have experience with nystagmus and prism treatment. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Ann Nobody on this list of professionals knows very much about vision, either. This is sad, but look around you: all they can do is just put a new pair of glasses, and then use drugs to relieve problems, without getting to the true causes of anything. When you will wake up? > Nobody on this list of professionals knows very much about vision, > either. "It is not so much that I have confidence in scientists being right, but that I have so much in nonscientists being wrong....It is those who support ideas for emotional reasons only who can't change." "If a scientific heresy is ignored or denounced by the general public, there is a chance it may be right. If a scientific heresy is emotionally supported by the general public, it is almost certainly wrong." -Isaac Asimov, 1977 >"It is not so much that I have confidence in scientists being right, but >that I have so much in nonscientists being wrong....It is those who support >ideas for emotional reasons only who can't change." ...ideas for ECONOMICAL reasons only who can't change... >"If a scientific heresy is ignored or denounced by the general public, there >is a chance it may be right. If a scientific heresy is emotionally supported >by the general public, it is almost certainly wrong." "having a chance" and "almost certailnly" hmm... > "having a chance" and "almost certailnly" > > hmm... Since you have no intelligible comment, I'll assume you like Asimov and pass along a couple more of his quotes: "No matter how many times a theory meets its tests successfully, there can be no certainty that it will not be overthrown by the next observation. This, then, is a cornerstone of modern natural philosophy. It makes no claim of attaining ultimate truth. In fact, the phrase 'ultimate truth' becomes meaningless, because there is no way in which enough observations can be made to make truth certain and, therefore, 'ultimate.' " (from Asimov's New Guide to Science, 1984) "No one can really feel at home in the modern world and judge the nature of its problems - and the possible solutions to those problems - unless one has some intelligent notion of what science is up to." (from Asimov's New Guide to Science, 1984) -MT >> "having a chance" and "almost certailnly" >> >> hmm... > >Since you have no intelligible comment, I'll assume you like Asimov and pass >along a couple more of his quotes: He left a possibility open. This shows his intelligence. The same intelligence that led Dr.Bates to investigate and study the famous 1 case out of 10 that was not in accordance with the theories that tried to explain what was happening. If only 1 case out of 10 is not in accordance with a theory this means that the theory IS wrong because that case is a fact. Even if the other 9 cases are in accordance with the theory, you CANNOT dismiss the 1 that is not. >"No matter how many times a theory meets its tests successfully, there can >be no certainty that it will not be overthrown by the next observation. Ditto. >This, then, is a cornerstone of modern natural philosophy. It makes no claim >of attaining ultimate truth. In fact, the phrase 'ultimate truth' becomes >meaningless, because there is no way in which enough observations can be >made to make truth certain and, therefore, 'ultimate.' " (from Asimov's New >Guide to Science, 1984) Read the first two pages (page vii) of Bates' unpolluted Perfect Sight Without Glasses. He said the same things in 1920. But since he is Bates then he is wrong. Duh. >"No one can really feel at home in the modern world and judge the nature of >its problems - and the possible solutions to those problems - unless one has >some intelligent notion of what science is up to." (from Asimov's New Guide >to Science, 1984) Read the book, Mike. You could still retain your profession and money, but this time CURING people from their ailments. > Read the book, Mike. > > You could still retain your profession and money, but this > time CURING people from their ailments. I've read the book. The original. Cover to cover. I found arguments that were emotional, based on false assumption and sloppy logic, and contradicted by later science. And more than a little paranoid. Every young person who has cataract surgery LOSES their accommodation. The external muscles are not disturbed, and the brain is not altered. How can any reasonable person conclude that the crystalline lens is not responsible for accommodation? Blind faith is no answer. Dr. Bates is the only one who succeeded in using his techniques to "cure" cataracts and glaucoma and anomalies of refraction. His success is only verified by his own testimony. Neither you nor I know of anyone who has such a spectacular record of "curing" eye problems by staring at the sun or conducting mental calisthentics like "imagining perfect blackness." His techniques fail to prove themselves when tested by modern science, so if I recommend them to patients I would be committing fraud. Unlike you, I can be sued and have my license revoked. So I'll leave it to the unlicensed practitioners like you who believe fervently that science is wrong and 80 years of research has all been wrong everywhere it contradicts Bates. And I still do not sell glasses. -MT >> Read the book, Mike. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I've read the book. The original. Cover to cover. I found arguments that >were emotional, based on false assumption and sloppy logic, and ??? Where exactly it is emotional ? Where are the false assumption ? Where is the sloppy logic ? Quote, please. >contradicted >by later science. This is not true. >And more than a little paranoid. Please define your use of the term "paranoid" in this context. ??? >Every young person who has cataract surgery LOSES their accommodation. The >external muscles are not disturbed, and the brain is not altered. Have you proofs of that ? I mean, scientific ones ? Have you tried, as the scientific method REQUIRES, to reproduce the experiments done by Bates as he described them in the book ? Have you got the same results ? >How can >any reasonable person conclude that the crystalline lens is not responsible >for accommodation? Are you being scientific or "reasonable" ? Lol. >Blind faith is no answer. Yours is blind faith, because you haven't tried to prove him right with just little experiments on yourself as well as on your patients. You believe that the sun is dangerous to the eyes when it is not. You are a blind believer. I tried it and succeeded, no faith involved. >Dr. Bates is the only one who succeeded in using his techniques to "cure" >cataracts and glaucoma and anomalies of refraction. His success is only >verified by his own testimony. > Neither you nor I know of anyone who has such >a spectacular record of "curing" eye problems by staring at the sun or >conducting mental calisthentics like "imagining perfect blackness." What you say that we don't know of anyone is false. I know of a certain MacCracken who wrote a book about his success of using the methods. You didn't even try it, how could you be this rigid in your erroneous ideas ? Sun is beneficial to the eyes. Improving imagination improves vision because to imagine somthing perfectly you have to be perfectly relaxed mentally. >His techniques fail to prove themselves when tested by modern science, Nobody did such a test. Scientifically. So how can you say something like this ? You are misleading. >so if >I recommend them to patients I would be committing fraud. That is wrong. You can propose this kind of treatment as a scientific experiment on willing patients (and there are LOTS and LOTS of them, as Rishi could tell from his business). There is no fraud whatsoever. You can start with few people without having them pay any fee. Then when you start to see that the treatment is sound, then you could apply it like other treatments and get paid for it. >Unlike you, I can >be sued and have my license revoked. Nobody is telling to you to do this. Even LASIK-criminals do request a signed paper. >So I'll leave it to the unlicensed >practitioners like you who believe fervently that science is wrong and 80 >years of research has all been wrong everywhere it contradicts Bates. This is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of fact that people, myself included, that understand the methods are benefited and cured. This is getting UNREAL for me, it is really annoying to witness what has happened to me and is happening to other intelligent people that are using the system in the right way and your wrong beliefs. It is heart-breaking, really. You quote asimov and then say things like: "that science is wrong and 80 years of research has all been wrong everywhere it contradicts Bates" Where the quote YOU made said that such a thing is POSSIBLE, and I and others can SAY that IS possible because is happening more and more to a lot of people. I think you are either lacking of comprehension skills or/and you are afraid to shake too much what your textbooks stuffed in your head. I'm sorry for what they (both) did to you. Dear Evaristo, Subject: Bates -- the courage as a professional to "buck" the system. It is always difficult for a man in a profession to turn around and state that the "standard method", i.e., minus lens, creates more problems than is solves. Bates stated that is an eye is slightly negative, i.e., 20/70, and you place a strong over-prescribed minus lens on it, the very shortly that natural eye will move more strongly in a negative direction, achieveing 20/200 in a relatively short time. How do you prove this statement about the behavior of the natural eye -- on a scientific (not medical) level. Simple. You take a population of natural primate eyes (monkey, not human) and place 1/2 in a more confined environment. If the natural eye "moves negative" then Bate's statement is confirmed. If not, the traditional method of "quick fixing" the eye with a minus lens is "safe". An accurate scientific judgment if you ask me. The experimental condition is clear, and the results will always be the same for the natural eye. The problem? The ODs state that they will intentionally ignore all proven facts concerning the primate eye. And Jan calls science of this nature so much "bla..bla", and then claims to be a skilled, impartial scientest. Do you take Jan's word for it -- or do you take science seriously. That is the question. Best, Otis Engineer > >> Read the book, Mike. > >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Where is the sloppy logic ? > Quote, please. > How do you prove this statement about the > behavior of the natural eye -- on a scientific > (not medical) level. Simple. You measure the rate of change in myopia in three groups of real humans: Group one are those who elect not to correct their myopia. Group two are those who wear correction only part-time. In group three you put all those who wear minus lenses constantly. If all three groups get nearsighted at the same rate, we know that neutralizing correction doesn't influence the rate of myopia. We KNOW human myopia relates to working distance. We also know that it DOESN'T relate to wearing or not wearing correction. > If not, the traditional method of > "quick fixing" the eye with a > minus lens is "safe". Why? Your experiment doesn't evaluate lenses on humans. It doesn't even evaluate them on monkeys. > An accurate scientific judgment if you > ask me. That's why we aren't asking you. Your experiment doesn't evaluate lenses on humans. It doesn't even evaluate them on monkeys. > The problem? The ODs state that they > will intentionally ignore all proven > facts concerning the primate eye. More Otis bullshit. ODs (and PhDs and MDs) all agree that myopia increases with closer working distance. Why do you ignore this? -MT > And I still do not sell glasses. Why not?  SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net >> And I still do not sell glasses. > > Why not? Well, one reason is I suck at retail selling.. Another is I absolutely hate fiddling with screws, adjustments, and complaints. And too often, fashion demands too much of physics and I've had no luck altering the laws of physics. :) -MT >>> And I still do not sell glasses. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >-MT Mike, I'd bet that there's an alternative universe where light travels in curved lines, or where the fashion industry is non-existent and all frames are 46 eye P3's. Robert Robert Martellaro ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Optician/Owner Roberts Optical robopt@execpc.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." - Richard Feynman > I'd bet that there's an alternative universe where light travels in curved > lines, or where the fashion industry is non-existent and all frames are 46 > eye > P3's. Maybe in the next life. Maybe in that universe the oblique muscles control accommodation and staring at the sun doesn't burn holes in the retina. :) -MT > Maybe in the next life. Maybe in that universe the oblique muscles control > accommodation and staring at the sun doesn't burn holes in the retina. :) No need for any life other than this, in fact, only this life exists. Accommodation is brought about the obliques, as many cases demosntrate if you let them demonstrate it, and the sun does not burn any hole in the retina, being the retina just a receptor of mind impulses, any hole that can appear by your so called instruments may be easily corrected by means of rest methods, many times in few minutes, but more commonly in some months. Of course it is needed a "shift": the patient should discard his glasses and make a point to learn the rest methods needed to heal the condiiton. In plain words, the patient should stop to behave stupidly. > I'd bet that there's an alternative universe where light travels in curved > lines, or where the fashion industry is non-existent and all frames are 46 eye > P3's. Hey, wait just one darn minute! (When not wearing contacts) I wear 46 eye P3 spects! Have do so for years (obviously) ;-) -LB > >> And I still do not sell glasses. > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > And too often, fashion demands too much of physics and I've had no luck > altering the laws of physics. :) I'm still not sure I understand. I see two ODs, one at my HMO (Kaiser) and one in private practice. Neither one sells glasses personally. Kaiser has opticians who do the sales, and my private OD has an optician who works for him. Where do your patients buy their glasses? SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net > Where do your patients buy their glasses? Most of them from the retail optical where I lease office space. -MT > > Where do your patients buy their glasses? > > Most of them from the retail optical where I lease office space. > > -MT The conspiration is exposed. > Another is I absolutely hate fiddling with screws, adjustments, and > complaints. Complaints? From whom? Perhaps you prescribe nuisance? > > Read the book, Mike. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > were emotional, based on false assumption and sloppy logic, and contradicted > by later science. And more than a little paranoid. You have not, you perhaps have skipped through the false edition post 1943 by Knolt publisher. > Every young person who has cataract surgery LOSES their accommodation. The > external muscles are not disturbed, and the brain is not altered. How can > any reasonable person conclude that the crystalline lens is not responsible > for accommodation? Blind faith is no answer. If you search in the original Bates book there are several references to published articles about many dozens of cases of people from several parts of the world who can accomodate without the lens, having it removed for cataract. The articles there mentioned are not by Bates but by other practicing physicians. Also one case was presented to a meeting of official ophthalmologists and nobody could deny that he could accomodate. They argued a lot about how he could do it, this is reported. > Dr. Bates is the only one who succeeded in using his techniques to "cure" > cataracts and glaucoma and anomalies of refraction. His success is only > verified by his own testimony. Neither you nor I know of anyone who has such > a spectacular record of "curing" eye problems by staring at the sun or > conducting mental calisthentics like "imagining perfect blackness." It is not the only one, at least we have Doctor MacCracken who continued the original system until 1945. He has published a book "Use your own eyes" and tells many cases of success, and also failures, in relieving many several serious diseases of vision. Pay attention, he was a practicing physician, with licence and everything else. He recounts that he sued one patient who would not pay him, on account of the patient telling he was doing a fraudolent work, but the judge ruled in favor of MacCracken, having witnessed personally the cures of 7 previous cilents who himself was acquainted with. In Germany now we have discovered that there was published a monthly magazine for several years and also the German translation of Dr. Bates original book, in 1931. They had great success. > His techniques fail to prove themselves when tested by modern science, so if > I recommend them to patients I would be committing fraud. Unlike you, I can > be sued and have my license revoked. So I'll leave it to the unlicensed > practitioners like you who believe fervently that science is wrong and 80 > years of research has all been wrong everywhere it contradicts Bates. Nobody has never replicated the accomodation tests Bates invented. This is interesting to see: no scientist is taking the trouble to see if by electrical stimulation the obliques can produce elongation of the globe. The reason? Because if they do the experiment, all of your theories simply fall, and you practice would be destroyed. > And I still do not sell glasses. Your partners sell them. And sell very well. By the way, a professor in Los Angeles has told me that there are PHYSIOLOGICAL STUDIES about the obliques being stimulated by drugs. They measured 6 dioptres of myopia elongation, who lasted six months. The eye of the patient could function properly but it was myopic for six months. Then this returned normal. Now six dioptres is just 2 mm of eye elongation, very easy to produce. Of course I do not say this to convince you, but for other interested people this may be interesting to be known. Other resources are to be found here http://TheCentralFixation.com > If turning your head helps, prism might help too (you would need to see try > it to know). However, in an earlier post I thought you said you didn't want > prisms either. Prisms would not deliver better vision than turning your > head does. Would I be able to move my eyes to track words when reading, or would prisms prohibit this? Currently, when I read, I have to move my head a little to follow words, to varying degrees. It's not just I have a null point but I have to move my head, my eyes really cannot follow the words too much. Perhaps I should be using a larger font for the computer. > You mentioned strabismus, is your right eye also amblyopic (lazy)? If so, > you will not be able to see detail with it. No, no no... Neither of my eyes has amblyopia the last time I went to a doctor. I can see out of both of them, but I see a little differently with each eye- I have an easier time reading with my left eye, and my right eye has a little better distance vision. I can look through both eyes and I have some depth perception (for instance, I can see viewmaster toys), but often it takes some concentration on my part. Often, I just look out of one eye or the other. I never have doubled vision. Does this make sense? I am afraid if I ever lost vision in one eye or the other, I would be unable to do alot of things that I now take for granted, like reading (well, as for granted as somebody with low vision/nystagmus can take that). > Since your vision is limited by the nystagmus, not glasses prescription. > Your "best corrected" vision is reduced and glasses will not improve it. > Prism glasses might make it as good as it is when you turn your head. Well jee, you don't think turning my head is frustrating? What planet are you from? Don't eye muscles work alot more efficiently than neck muscles? OK, I have lived with it for 28 years or so... so I'm not sure I'd know it any other way. For some reason, when I talked to the optician/optometrist about prismatic glasses, they tried to disuade me from it... but I forgot about the reason why. Are they heavy glasses, perhaps they are thick and made from glass?+ >> If turning your head helps, prism might help too (you would need to see >try [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >glasses, they tried to disuade me from it... but I forgot about the reason >why. Are they heavy glasses, perhaps they are thick and made from glass?+ My sister has prisms in her glasses for some other reason and her glasses look normal, I'm pretty sure they aren't glass either. Ann >> If turning your head helps, prism might help too (you would need to see > try [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > Well jee, you don't think turning my head is frustrating? What planet are > you from? Don't eye muscles work alot more efficiently than neck muscles? Not sure what you mean here. Your problem is not with eye or neck muscles, it is with the neurology to the eye muscles. Both turning your head and prisms will allow the eyes to assume their nystagmus null point. The best vision you can hope for is the vision at the null point, whether achieved by neck turn or prism. > OK, I have lived with it for 28 years or so... so I'm not sure I'd know > it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > glasses, they tried to disuade me from it... but I forgot about the reason > why. Are they heavy glasses, perhaps they are thick and made from glass?+ Prism can be done in glass or plastic, plastic is lighter. Prism will make lenses thicker, how much thicker depends upon how much prism will be needed. For large amounts of prism "Fresnel" prisms can be used, they are thin, plastic prisms that stick onto your regular lenses. Dr Judy > If turning your head helps, prism might help too (you would need to > see try it to know). However, in an earlier post I thought you said > you didn't want prisms either. Prisms would not deliver better vision > than turning your head does. This is fairly accurate, but if vergence suppresses the nystagmus better than eccentric gaze, base-outs might very well improve vision better than the head turn. Scott > Since you don't want to turn your head or hold things close but want > what both those strategies will deliver (better acuity), your low > vision specialists are right in saying nothing can be done for you. I don't understand why you think using parallel prisms to move the eyes to an eccentric position when the eye is straight ahead ("simulating" a head turn) or base outs to produce vergence for far gaze won't work. The ocular motor lab I was mentored in had a closely affiliated CN lab. Off the top of my head, I'd estimate that at least 30% of the CN patients that came in had an immediate improvement in visual acuity by one of these methods of at least two lines--- and the head turn goes away because its no longer necessary. If these methods work, and the patient doesn't like the prisms, strab surgery is usually successful. There is a literature on such techniques, and many papers on them are cited in Leigh and Zee, The Neurology of Eye Movements. Scott How successful is the surgery on the eyes, and does it benefit somebody with a known etiology for their nystagmus, namely, optic nerve hypoplasia? Eye surgery gives me the heebee jeebees, just the thought of it. The eye is fairly fragile to begin with (and you only have two of them), and then they have to do all this stuff to it just to get to it. If I found out it had a poor success rate, or required multiple "retouches"... you could count me out. Add onto that, the fact I don't even have health insurance, and it becomes problematic. I just wouldn't want that frustration. > How successful is the surgery on the eyes, and does it benefit > somebody [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > don't even have health insurance, and it becomes problematic. I just > wouldn't want that frustration. The worse your vision is when your eyes are standing perfectly still, the worse the chances of any successful treatment. Some of the surgical approaches are simply to build the optical approaches right into the eye-- so if prisms won't work, these surgeries won't work. There's a newer procedure that simply reinserts all the eye muscles, without trying to move the eye. The outcomes there would be less likely to be correlated with the optical approaches, but I'm not real up on how successful it is. Scott > How successful is the surgery on the eyes, and does it benefit somebody > with a known etiology for their nystagmus, namely, optic nerve hypoplasia? There isn't surgery for nystagmus. There is surgery for strabismus and success depends on a number of individual factors that require an eye exam by a surgeon to discuss. Dr Judy > Eye surgery gives me the heebee jeebees, just the thought of it. The eye > is fairly fragile to begin with (and you only have two of them), and then [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > it > becomes problematic. I just wouldn't want that frustration. > There isn't surgery for nystagmus. There is surgery for strabismus > and success depends on a number of individual factors that require an > eye exam by a surgeon to discuss. There are surgical procedures that have been successfully employed on nystagmus patients without strabismus. These surgeries, like many surgeries on the eye muscles, use the same techniques as surgeries typically used for strabismus, and are probably best carried out by strab surgeons, as they have the most experience with such cases. However, the procedures are "for" whatever disorder they are being used to treat. Regardless of the semantic argument, there are a variety of surgical approaches, some normally associated with strabismus, used to treat CN on patients who do not have strabismus. I've taken the liberty of attaching the abstracts of two papers, the first from the heavily peer reviewed "Ophthalmology" describing one such surgical procedure, and the second from Annals NYAS, which largely publishes meeting proceedings (and as such is not necessarily rigorously peer reviewed), and it reviews optical and surgical approaches. Scott **************** Authors Hertle RW. Dell'Osso LF. FitzGibbon EJ. Thompson D. Yang D. Mellow SD. Institution Pediatric Ophthalmology Associates and The Laboratory of Visual and Ocular Motor Physiology, Columbus Children's Hospital, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43205, USA. Title Horizontal rectus tenotomy in patients with congenital nystagmus: results in 10 adults. Source Ophthalmology. 110(11):2097-105, 2003 Nov. Abstract OBJECTIVE: We wished to determine the effectiveness of horizontal rectus tenotomy in changing the nystagmus of patients with congenital nystagmus and, secondarily, how their visual function changed. DESIGN: This was a prospective, noncomparative, interventional case series. PARTICIPANTS: Ten adult patients with varied associated sensory defects and oculographic subtypes of congenital nystagmus (including asymmetric periodic or aperiodic alternating nystagmus) and no nystagmus treatment options. METHODS: By using standard surgical techniques, simple tenotomy of all four horizontal recti with reattachment at the original insertion was accomplished. Search-coil eye movement recordings and clinical examinations were performed before and 1, 6, 24, and 52 weeks after surgery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the expanded nystagmus acuity function, obtained in "masked" fashion directly from ocular motility recordings. Secondary outcomes included breadth of null zones, preoperative and postoperative masked measures of visual acuity (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study [ETDRS] chart), and the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ-25). RESULTS: At 1 year after tenotomy and under binocular conditions, 9 of 10 patients had persistent, significant postoperative increases in the expanded nystagmus acuity function of their fixing (preferred) eye; 1 remained high, and 1 was not tested under the same conditions. Average foveation times increased in all 9 fixing (preferred) eyes. Binocular visual acuity measured with the ETDRS chart increased in 5 patients and was unaffected in five, whereas the NEI-VFQ-25 showed an improvement in vision-specific mental health in 9 patients. There were no adverse events. Tenotomy also radically changed the periodicity of one patient's asymmetric periodic or aperiodic alternating nystagmus. CONCLUSIONS: In 9 of 10 adult patients with clinical and oculographic variations in their congenital nystagmus, tenotomy resulted in significant improvements in a nystagmus measure and subjective visual functions. *************** Unique Identifier 11960819 Authors Dell'Osso LF. Institution Ocular Motor Neurophysiology Laboratory, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA. Title Development of new treatments for congenital nystagmus. [Review] [64 refs] Source Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 956:361-79, 2002 Apr. Abstract The use of ocular motor data as the basis for the development of both nonsurgical and surgical therapies for congenital nystagmus (CN) has been underway since the mid-1960s. This paper presents three nonsurgical therapies (composite prisms, soft contact lenses, and afferent stimulation) and a new surgical therapy (four-muscle tenotomy) hypothesized from analysis of ocular motor data. The expanded nystagmus acuity function test was developed to both predict and measure the effectiveness of CN therapies and for intersubject comparisons. Base-out prisms may be used to damp CN during distance fixation in patients whose CN damps during near fixation and who are binocular (i.e., they have no strabismus). Soft contact lenses may be used in those whose CN damps with afferent stimulation of the ophthalmic division of the trigeminal nerve. Cutaneous afferent stimulation (rubbing, vibration, or electricity) of the forehead or neck damps CN in some individuals. Finally, as first demonstrated in an achiasmic Belgian sheepdog and later in humans, tenotomy of the four horizontal rectus muscles and reattachment at their original sites may also damp CN. Taken together, these findings suggest the existence of one or more proprioceptive feedback loops acting to change the small-signal gain of the extraocular plant. Four-muscle tenotomy provides a needed therapeutic option for the many individuals with CN for whom other surgical therapies are contraindicated. Tenotomy may also prove useful in see-saw nystagmus (it abolished it in the aforementioned canine) or other types of nystagmus; further studies of the latter are required. [References: 64] I have congenital nystagmus and have worn 5 diopler base out prisms in each eye. They do reduce my nystagmus, but have do not have much improvement in my vision. But I do feel that my overall functional vision is better. However a few times when I wake up, I started having double vision. After a few seconds, it goes away. Could this be caused by the wearing of the prism glasses? Also are there any good articles in any medical journals on the effects of base out prisms on nystagmus? Mike vision between 20/30 - 20/40 > > There isn't surgery for nystagmus. There is surgery for strabismus > > and success depends on a number of individual factors that require an [quoted text clipped - 100 lines] > aforementioned canine) or other types of nystagmus; further studies of > the latter are required. [References: 64] Does "latent" nystagmus cause the same problems as nystagmus? When I went in for a consulation on getting a 5th surgery for strabismis, the doctor commented that I had latent nystagmus. >> orphan disease, but I figure an optometrist would at least know SOMETHING >> about it beyond "oh yeah, there is generally no cure... you see about as [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > -MT > Does "latent" nystagmus cause the same problems as nystagmus? When I went > in for a consulation on getting a 5th surgery for strabismis, the doctor > commented that I had latent nystagmus. This is one for the nystagmus experts, which I'm not. But in this newsgroup, qualifications aren't apparently required to offer opinions, so... By clinical definition, LN is nystagmus that only appears when one eye is covered, so I'd expect the answer to be "no." LN isn't likely to cause the same problems as congenital nystagmus, which tends to be constant and significantly decreases vision. Presuming that you're over 12 years old and your surgery is for cosmetic benefit rather than to give you binocular vision, I'd also guess that LN isn't likely to change or cause new problems after surgery. -MT > Does "latent" nystagmus cause the same problems as nystagmus? When I went in > for a consulation on getting a 5th surgery for strabismis, the doctor > commented that I had latent nystagmus. This means you have nystagmus when you are only seeing through one eye, but not both eyes together If this is possible, not all people with strabismus can have stereoscopic vision). The eye with nystagmus is the one turned "off", I believe. > There are "treatments" for nystagmus but none of them work very well, > and most of them only work for some people, if at all. I believe you > said you also had optic atrophy? Isn't it possible that the low vision > specialist was shooting straight when he said nothing cures it? While none of the treaments are 100%, and those with real problems on the visual substrate (i.e., those who wouldn't see well if the eyes were standing dead still) obviously wouldn't benefit from any of them, some patients can benefit quite dramatically. Those patients will tell you that its worth trying to identify them. In this case, if the optic atrophy is dramatic, perhaps the low vision specialist is right. Keep in mind, though, that the nystagmus effects the eye exam, as well as the patient's vision. It's hard to image a wiggling macula. If it were me, I'd try to see a strabismologist with experience treating nystagmus, or a neuro-ophth who was trained primarily as a neurologist-- not a low-vision specialist, necessarily. > Some of these treatments might reduce your nystagmus but that isn't > saying they will improve your acuity. Is cosmetic improvement all you > want? This patient is complaining of neck problems because of a dramatic head turn. Resolving the head turn doesn't seem entirely cosmetic. In fact, if the prism approach did nothing more than to resolve a dramatic head turn, wouldn't that be a little like doing strab surgery on an adult-- not necessarily benefitting vision, but making the patient less self concious? > Prism glasses can help if you have a "null point." If you experience > less motion in one position of gaze, you probably already seek it out > with a head turn or tilt. If you don't have a null point, then prism > glasses are pretty worthless. This patient already has a head turn, which is fairly compelling evidence that there is a null that can be taken advantage of. Often, in patients with a head turn, the null associated with near vision is markedly better than the null associated with eccentric gaze-- thus a base-out approach (compensated, of course, for accomodation at near) is often more successful than the patients can achieve on their own with a head turn, or with parallel prisms. There are some little tricks that the provider and optician needs to know, like making sure the prisms are edge-treated to keep out annoying light, and never forgetting to adjust any correction for accomodation. While precise eye movement recordings will categorically display where the nystagmus is quietest, it really doesn't cost very much to rig up the patient in a trial set with about 15 diopters base out split between two eyes, with a 1 diopter lens for accomodation, and then point the patient at an eye chart and ask them to read OU. Scott > One thing that pisse me off is that I refuse to drive, and my dad is >convinced that all I need is a little willpower and I'd be driving, and he [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >too many near-misses, and to forget about me driving. He says I'm lazy, I >disagree. Oh yes, I get this too. I am a one-eyed person who refuses to drive because it simply isn't safe. Hell, I can't even walk down the street without bumping into people, getting taken unawares on one side all the time so driving has to be dangerous. I used to ride a motorbike but it gave it up as I wanted to stay alive. I usually counteract being told that so and so only has one eye too and drives, with something like "I think the law should state that nobody with such a diminished area of vision should drive, it's too dangerous, and if anyone knows that I do." That usually shuts them up. Ann > Oh yes, I get this too. I am a one-eyed person who refuses to drive > because it simply isn't safe. Hell, I can't even walk down the street [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > dangerous, and if anyone knows that I do." That usually shuts them > up. While I respect your decision, and don't think that anyone should drive who doesn't feel safe driving, I don't agree that two eyes are necessary, and neither does the State of California, fortunately for my wife and I. My wife has had severe amblyopia her whole life, and has best vision in her right eye of 20/800 corrected. Her left eye is fine. She is comfortable driving. I have lost much of my vision in my right eye. I am comfortable driving also. SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.