Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Vision / June 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

I had my eye exam...

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
John Yasar - 31 May 2005 09:24 GMT
I had the eye exam portion of the Army Flight Physical Class 1W/1A for
Warrant Officers today. To my surprise, I hadn't even scheduled an
appointment or I started a warrant officer application packet, but here
is what happened.

I went to our Troop Medical Clinic and inquired about eye exams that are
given to pilot candidates, front desk didn't know much so they sent me
to the post OD's room. I went there and explained the situation and the
assistant called the OD who is a captain in the Army. I explained my
symptoms and my concerns in getting to the flight school. They decided
to give me an exam right there without the necessary paperwork, so I
went ahead and sat in front of the first machine, which there was a
windmill looking image on an orange background, coming in and out of
focus. It did that for a while for the right eye and left eye and
captain said, you are good to go, you are within the limits with -.50
right and .-25 left. No astigmatism. I asked about if we could do
cycloplegic refraction. He said it wouldn't change this error very much
and dilating tends to make eyes move to positive state, he said it might
help me in my case. It was surprising to me that this state has not
changed since my first refraction eye exam 11 years ago. He jokingly
said "you don't get any taller anymore, do you? same sh.t..." Hope he is
right. I did the visual acuity next, first I was not able to read the
20/20 line in the AFVT machine so I started reading 20/30 line with my
right eye, but all of a sudden, they slowly started to come into focus
one by one.the lighting in the machine was lower and the 20/20 was
farther than I thought. They were not clear and sharp in focus but I was
able to guess. Out of 16 letters, 8 on each, I didn't miss any. I missed
2 out of 5 in my first try with the "good" eye and I told them I needed
to rest my eyes a little. Tried it again and one blink, it came all
clearly in focus. Near vision was a piece of cake. Then field of vision
was tested and I was able to catch all the lights blinking right and
left. Depth perception however was a bitch and didn't work right, I was
looking at these shapes where circles are supposed to jump out. Nope
nothing was happening. Assistant gave me a pair of glasses and showed me
a card with lines of three circles each, each one had circles jumping
way out. That was done, then color vision testing, only those 88s or
86s, or 89s in the brown patterns, I needed to look more carefully, they
looked really faint, I missed one and she said are you sure, looked
carefully "ah ok I see it now......" Then she did IOP test and my right
eye was 16 and left was 15. It is the air blowing machine when you are
looking into the green light. That was OK, too. Don't know what that
measured. Gotta be some sort of pressure.

So basically, I am happy that I am within limits for flight training and
I wanted to share it with you all already know about my situation. Eye
care and vision is one of my interest areas, especially vision required
for the military stuff. I like to read and learn about it. Thanks for
taking time answering my questions, via the newsgroup or emails, it
means a lot. I will hang around and participate more often.

Signature

PV2 Yasar, M
U.S. ARMY
AH-64D "Armt Dawg"
A Co/602d ASB/2ID/EUSA - South Korea
Tuesday, 31 May 2005 / 17:24:17 Korea Standard Time (+0900)

Dr. Leukoma - 31 May 2005 13:11 GMT
Glad to see that all went well with your exam, and that you can get
into flight school.

DrG
John Yasar - 31 May 2005 15:27 GMT
>Glad to see that all went well with your exam, and that you can get into flight school. DrG
>  

DrG, I appreciate the info you have given me so far. Does anything sound
different in what happened today in my exam than your usual exams for
your patients? Except the cycloplegic refrac. part...

Signature

PV2 Yasar, M
U.S. ARMY
AH-64D "Armt Dawg"
A Co/602d ASB/2ID/EUSA - South Korea
Tuesday, 31 May 2005 / 23:26:34 Korea Standard Time (+0900)

Dr. Leukoma - 31 May 2005 17:43 GMT
> >Glad to see that all went well with your exam, and that you can get into flight school. DrG
> >
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> --

Actually, it all sounded pretty routine.  Although, if somebody said
that their vision was fluctuating between indoors and out, and between
morning and evening, I might do a little more investigating, depending
upon how interested the patient was in knowing.

DrG

DrG
John Yasar - 31 May 2005 18:00 GMT
>Actually, it all sounded pretty routine.  Although, if somebody said
>that their vision was fluctuating between indoors and out, and between
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>  

About this let me ask you a quick question, would this be caused by
simple eye strain? Different types of lighting? In our installations
they use pretty low lighting, all flourescent, most likely cheap to run,
Today when I got my eye exam done at around 11 I thought it was midday
already and I was going to flunk it, but when I start looking down the
machine, things seem to be fine. Let's see if this is going to get any
worse in time. I am still so glad that my Rx didn't progress and stayed
-.50.

Signature

PV2 Yasar, M
U.S. ARMY
AH-64D "Armt Dawg"
A Co/602d ASB/2ID/EUSA - South Korea
Wednesday, 01 Jun 2005 / 02:00:35 Korea Standard Time (+0900)

Dr. Leukoma - 31 May 2005 23:58 GMT
Any of those reasons are plausible.  With any small refractive error,
low lighting makes it seem worse than in bright lighting.

DrG
John Yasar - 01 Jun 2005 10:43 GMT
>Any of those reasons are plausible.  With any small refractive error,
>low lighting makes it seem worse than in bright lighting.
>
>DrG
>  

Roger that Doc...

Signature

PV2 Yasar, M
U.S. ARMY
AH-64D "Armt Dawg"
A Co/602d ASB/2ID/EUSA - South Korea
Wednesday, 01 Jun 2005 / 18:43:00 Korea Standard Time (+0900)

John Yasar - 01 Jun 2005 13:41 GMT
>Any of those reasons are plausible.  With any small refractive error,
>low lighting makes it seem worse than in bright lighting.
>
>DrG

Also DrG, I forgot to mention, Army OD said that low myopic people
(-.50) like me tend to sense little differences more often in their
vision, and acuity, and basically told me not to worry too much, there
more pilots in the Army with worse eyesight than mine.

Signature

PV2 Yasar, M
U.S. ARMY
AH-64D "Armt Dawg"
A Co/602d ASB/2ID/EUSA - South Korea
Wednesday, 01 Jun 2005 / 21:41:29 Korea Standard Time (+0900)

Dr. Leukoma - 01 Jun 2005 14:34 GMT
> >Any of those reasons are plausible.  With any small refractive error,
> >low lighting makes it seem worse than in bright lighting.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> vision, and acuity, and basically told me not to worry too much, there
> more pilots in the Army with worse eyesight than mine.

Roger that.  I once new a reserve F16 pilot who was -2.00 and flew with
contact lenses.

DrG
John Yasar - 01 Jun 2005 15:28 GMT
>Roger that.  I once new a reserve F16 pilot who was -2.00 and flew with
>contact lenses.
>
>DrG
>
>  

Definitely, as a matter of fact I saw a few Blackhawk pilots at the rank
of Captain discussing at lunch today, one of them had glasses. No
problem once you are rated as an aviator.

Signature

PV2 Yasar, M
U.S. ARMY
AH-64D "Armt Dawg"
A Co/602d ASB/2ID/EUSA - South Korea
Wednesday, 01 Jun 2005 / 23:28:34 Korea Standard Time (+0900)

A Lieberman - 01 Jun 2005 23:54 GMT
> Also DrG, I forgot to mention, Army OD said that low myopic people
> (-.50) like me tend to sense little differences more often in their
> vision, and acuity, and basically told me not to worry too much, there
> more pilots in the Army with worse eyesight than mine.

Ummm, Otis,

Now tell me again about pilots needing your plus therapy????  

John is again disproving your theory.  See above!

And check out Dr Leukoma's post immediately below John's post.

A -2 myopic flying one of our military planes.  Guess what Otis!  There is
No NEED TO PREVENT MYOPIA when contacts or eyeglasses work for military
pilots.

The last I knew, Army is military....

In other words, you may want to take your snake oil therapy somewhere else.
Or find another reason other then pilots to sell your sillyness.

You have already lost all credibility.  
You don't provide any websites outside yours that substantiate your
nonsense.  
You don't answer direct questions.  

How in the world can you expect us to allow unsuspecting new people fall
for your snake oil???

Allen
A Lieberman - 31 May 2005 23:34 GMT
Otis,

I am not snipping anything out of this post SO YOU CAN READ SLOWLY AND
CAREFULLY.  

I think that John just shot down the need for your so called Plus method
for pilots.

It's quite clear that with the PROPER MEDICAL ADVICE, a pilot can get in to
the military and (gulp) become a pilot.

You just may want to pick another profession.  

Thank you John for posting your experiences!!!

Allen

> I had the eye exam portion of the Army Flight Physical Class 1W/1A for
> Warrant Officers today. To my surprise, I hadn't even scheduled an
[quoted text clipped - 45 lines]
> taking time answering my questions, via the newsgroup or emails, it
> means a lot. I will hang around and participate more often.
otisbrown@pa.net - 01 Jun 2005 06:01 GMT
Dear Allen,

John is his "own man".

He had every opportunity to read many things, and I encouraged
him to do so.

The use of the plus required a personal commitment -- rather
heavy indeed.  It is not a casual thing to do -- and I would
not expect most to do it.

Further, why do you post here.  Read the preceeding posts -- I have
said NOTHING AT ALL.  It is simply John's statement
of his concerns with passing the military requirement to
pass the exam.  In this case he was concerned with
both 20/20 and passing the required cycloplegic
exam.

I did suggest some methods that he could use to verify
that his refractive state was SLIGHTLY positive, i.e.,
Snellen chart and plus lens that would give
him some more confidence in his work.

But other than that -- this is none of your business -- nor
your concern.

Best,

Otis
Dan Abel - 01 Jun 2005 19:19 GMT
> But other than that -- this is none of your business -- nor
> your concern.

If it's none of our business, and none of our concern, WHY DO YOU POST IT HERE?

Signature

Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS
dabel@sonic.net

otisbrown@pa.net - 01 Jun 2005 06:14 GMT
Dear Allen,

You are not a "professional" OD and are not qualified
to give advice of this nature.

Further -- I recognize that professionals disagree.

This is NOT AN INSULT.  The are trained along similar
lines, but after years of practice they come to profoundly
different conclusions about science and experimental facts.

The fact that they do is of great benifit to all of us -- because
that is how new methods and better solutions develope
in science, and YES in "medicine".

As an engineer I keep informed of these developments
and refer a person to a highly qualified OPTOMETRIST who
supports YOUR RIGHT to an infomrmed, COMPETENT
professional.

That is Steve Leung OD.  You (and others) might
read his site:

www.chinamyopia.org

to underst this isssue of prevention on the
threshold of nearsighedness -- for
those who desire to keep their
distant vision clear through the school
years.

The purpose of science and sci.med.vision is
to make this information generally available
for the pilots and students-of-science who
have the essential interest in protecting
their distant vision.

They have nothing to lose in reviewing this
information.

Best,

Otis
Mike Tyner - 01 Jun 2005 06:44 GMT
> That is Steve Leung OD.  You (and others) might
> read his site:

There are web sites that claim the earth is flat and others that claim peach
pits cure cancer.

Where does Dr. Leung report his controlled comparisons between treated and
untreated groups?

-MT
otisbrown@pa.net - 01 Jun 2005 14:42 GMT
Dear Mike,

If you study tree-bark or the bugs that infest under the tree-bark
you will be an expert of such things.

But when you have your nose (myopically) burried in the
tree-bark -- you will have no idea about the forest in
broad prespective.

We both agree that prevention with the plus is difficult.

But there is a broad-based understanding of the
natural eye that the natural eye (as a sophisticated system)
must change its refractive state (output) as the
visual enviromnt (in diopters) "input" is changed.

This has NOTHING to do with medicine.

It is simply a matter of experimental testing
an verifiction.  I posted this study previously.

Steve, as a parent and an OD can take actions
with his own children -- that he can not take
with the general public.  He has every right
to do this.

And you as an OD have every right to put a minus
lens on your children as well as grandchildren.

That is the true-nature of a "second opinion".

You must do what you think is right -- and
Steve Leung must do what he believes is right -- at
the threshold.

As you might recall, Dr. T. Grosvenor recommend exactly
the same thing (i.e., prevention at the threshold).

It would be interesting to find out how Grosvenor delt
with his own children.

The concept of the second-opinion, and the right to
an INFORMED choice is always a good thing.

However it is clear from the facts available that
this is a "one-time" choice for the person concerned
with protecting his long-term vision -- for life.

A "wrong" decision can have serious consequences
for him.

Best,

Otis
Mike Tyner - 01 Jun 2005 15:47 GMT
> It is simply a matter of experimental testing
> an verifiction.  I posted this study previously.

I missed it. Where did you post evidence that plus lenses prevent myopia in
humans?

You have not. Again your information is false and misleading.

-MT
Neil Brooks - 01 Jun 2005 16:26 GMT
>If you study tree-bark or the bugs that infest under the tree-bark
>you will be an expert of such things.
>
>But when you have your nose (myopically) burried in the
>tree-bark -- you will have no idea about the forest in
>broad prespective.

But when you take the broad view, as Otis does, you are unfettered by
issues of fact, science, or proof.

>We both agree that prevention with the plus is difficult.

I mised the quote where Mike agreed with you there, Otis.  Please
provide a reference (egads, somebody's asking Otis to prove the
veracity of one of his claims!!)

>But there is a broad-based understanding of the
>natural eye that the natural eye (as a sophisticated system)
>must change its refractive state (output) as the
>visual enviromnt (in diopters) "input" is changed.

Did I miss "box camera" in there somewhere??

>This has NOTHING to do with medicine.

But if the science were legitimate and correct, the medical proof
would follow . . . it doesn't . . . so it isn't.  The delineation
you're trying to draw is meaningless, and designed only to give you
cover.

>It is simply a matter of experimental testing
>an verifiction.  I posted this study previously.

1) "verifiction?"  Freudian slip, I imagine?

2) You've posted no successful experiment that ever showed the
validity of what you claim.
Neil Brooks - 03 Jun 2005 22:48 GMT
[snip]

You left out "box camera."
A Lieberman - 01 Jun 2005 23:45 GMT
> You are not a "professional" OD and are not qualified
> to give advice of this nature.

Another bet Otis.  

Please indicate to me in from my prior post that I gave advice about
medical treatment.  

Google is my friend pal.  If my prior post conveniently got lost off your
newserver, look it up, you won't find it.

AGAIN, I bet you can't and won't find anything I said in this thread giving
medical advice.  It's not there, only in your imaginary world along with
your imaginary subjects is it there.

For all the bets I have made with you, sheeez, I could retire, and I am not
a betting person!

Allen
Dr. Leukoma - 02 Jun 2005 00:06 GMT
I think that what we have here is a case of an ENGINEER who wanted to
be a pilot, but NOW WANTS TO BE AN OPTOMETRIST.

Sorry, not shouting.  The caps are for em-PHASIS.

DrG
 
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.