 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / June 2007Macula Pucker - RD
Hello there I am 27 years old male. I was highly myopic right from my child hood. I have been treated with laser photo coagulation to prevent retinal detachment 3 times. I had AOL for both my eyes an year ago. After this, my right eye developed secondary cataract which was removed with laser. A week ago, i am diagonalized with macula pucker. I am very much worried and terrified. I am having an appoinment with my retinal specialist in a weeks time. What are the things i should be aware of? How much probability is there for me to lose my vision? Thank you Raj Dear Raj, Could you provide your current prescription? Otis > Hello there > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Raj > Dear Raj, > Could you provide your current prescription? > Otis Which tells you exactly what, Otis? Raj, there's a well-written FAQ at http://www.nei.nih.gov/health/pucker/index.asp quoted below: "Most macular puckers are related to vitreous detachment, which usually occurs in people over age 50. As you age, you are at increased risk for macular pucker." "A macular pucker can also be triggered by certain eye diseases and disorders, such as a detached retina and inflammation of the eye (uveitis). Also, people with diabetes sometimes develop an eye disease called diabetic retinopathy, which can cause a macular pucker. A macular pucker can also be caused by trauma from either surgery or an eye injury." -MT Dear Mike, I notice that YOU do not respond to Raj -- until I post a statement. Also, why don't YOU answer the REST OF HIS QUESTIONS? After all you are the expert. Otis > <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > -MT On Jun 13, 8:34 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > I notice that YOU do not respond to Raj -- until I post > a statement. Are you monitoring Mike's schedule now? Perhaps he was otherwise engaged. > Also, why don't YOU answer the REST OF HIS QUESTIONS? > > After all you are the expert. You are a small, petty, psychologically-impaired man, Uncle Otie. > I notice that YOU do not respond to Raj -- until I post > a statement. I waited to see if someone else might have more experience. Novel approach, ya think? Instead a troll popped up waving a Snellen chart. -MT Dear Optometrist Mike, You are correct. You are only allowed to "treat" refractive STATES. You are not an ophthamologist, and are prohibited from treating truly medical conditions. You should have waited for an ophthamologist to respond and proved true medical advice. Otis > <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > -MT > You are not an ophthamologist, and are prohibited > from treating truly medical conditions. I have a DEA number. I write prescriptions for medical conditions.. Pharmacies fill my prescriptions and insurance companies pay me for treating medical conditions. I pay malpractice insurance. Since you have no clue what an optometrist does, could there be anything else you were wrong about? -MT On Jun 14, 8:56 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Optometrist Mike, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You should have waited for an ophthamologist > to respond and proved true medical advice. God, you're an idiot. On Jun 14, 11:56 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Optometrist Mike, > You should have waited for an ophthamologist > to respond and proved true medical advice. > > Otis since when did perfect expertise on a subject become a criterion that you care about when posting in this newsgroup? note that this newsgroup is about science, medicine, and vision and you know nothing about any of those subjects. you are a retired engineer (so you claim) who has a fetish about a long-ago disproven scientific theory regarding the cause of myopia. you totally disregard the science on the topic, and you trash talk the medical people who treat this condition as being "arrogant" and "close minded". how can you try to take the position that only people with real expertise should post on a subject? you have zero knowledge yet you just won't shut up and go away! you are an idiot. and by the way, why won't you take a moment to explain why uncorrected hyperopes, who strain to see all day long as though they were overminused, don't have their eyes elongate so that they lose their hyperopia as you believe should occur in the "dynamic" natural eye? and why don't uncorrected myopes lose some of their myopia? and why don't overcorrected myopes become myopic faster (staircase)? is the fact that you never answer these questions jusy a silent admission that you really don't know anything about the topic? then why not just go away so we can return to civility here? > Instead a troll popped up waving a Snellen chart. > > -MT and also waving a pair of plus reading glasses, undying faith, and a big chip on his shoulder >> Instead a troll popped up waving a Snellen chart. >> >> -MT > > and also waving a pair of plus reading glasses, undying faith, and a > big chip on his shoulder About time somebody took to that big chip with an equally big log splitter.  SignatureNicolaas. 2007 Pricelessware CD now available. 600Mb of the best of the best in Freeware. E-Mail me for details. ... All bleeding stops ... eventually. Mike Tyner keyed the following on 6/14/2007 1:23 AM: >> I notice that YOU do not respond to Raj -- until I post >> a statement. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Instead a troll popped up waving a Snellen chart. Or perhaps an Amsler grid?? > <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > -MT Mike, I am amazed at you jumping on Otis. It's obvious that he has found a scientific way to treat macular puckers with a plus lens, but no, you must come up with some internet articles from the first opinion establishment and prevent him from bringing fundamental scientific cure to the natural eye of the patient who has been exposed to the evils of the minus since childhood. Shame on you, Mike! > Mike, I am amazed at you jumping on Otis. It's obvious that he has > found a scientific way to treat macular puckers with a plus lens, but > no, you must come up with some internet articles from the first > opinion establishment and prevent him from bringing fundamental > scientific cure to the natural eye of the patient who has been exposed > to the evils of the minus since childhood. Shame on you, Mike! Hello brainy, Can you please brief me more on the way to treat macular puckers with a plus lens. Thanks Raj > > Mike, I am amazed at you jumping on Otis. It's obvious that he has > > found a scientific way to treat macular puckers with a plus lens, but [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Can you please brief me more on the way to treat macular puckers with > a plus lens. Ms Brainy was being sarcastic. Plus lenses cannot be used to treat macular puckers. Dr Judy > Thanks > Raj > > > Mike, I am amazed at you jumping on Otis. It's obvious that he has > > > found a scientific way to treat macular puckers with a plus lens, but [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Dr Judy Thank you Dr. Judy for being the voice of sanity in this circus. I read this post in the web. It will be really helpfull, to know what you guys think about such a solution of vision with one eye. ------------------------- , too, was dianosed with Macular Pucker about a year ago, following an MRI to determine whether or not there might be a brain tumor since I first began having problems I could only describe as seeing double, mostly while working on my computer screen or reading. It was several months into the problem before I discovered the wavy line effect (left eye) and then realized I wasn't seeing double but the wavy line was causing items in one line to move up into the line above (a real problem when you work all day with figures as I do in my job as a Payroll Administrator. After being examined by an opthamologist, who determined I was not a candidate for surgery, I resolved the problem by putting a patch on the left lens of my glasses, thus viewing my computer screen and reading items only through my right eye (I could see fine for driving and the "big picture"...it was only in detail that things were distorted.) The patch was not exactly satisfactory so I eventually saw a retina specialist to see if surgery might be a better answer. He, too, advised against surgery in my case but did send me back to my optometrist to see if there might be a different answer where glasses were concerned. Bingo! My optometrist said "let's do something drastic and put a strong contact lens on your left eye to suppress the vision enough to allow only your right eye to see detail." When he put the contact in and details were clear and straight, I cried tears of joy. What a difference from wearing the patch. It's been several months now since I started wearing the contact and I couldn't be happier with this solution. My contact is soft and the type that can be worn all the time (even to sleep). It's also the type that only needs to be removed and cleaned once a month, and after three months I throw it away and put in a new one. This may not be the answer for everyone with this condition but I definitely recommend it as a possibility for anyone who is still trying to find a solution to see detail better without resorting to surgery. --------------------- Thanks Raj Dear Raj, Subject: False posts by a Ms. Brainy. This person makes up things. I have NEVER made any association between a lens and macular pucker. Tragically, this "Brainy" made this up for her "own reasons", what ever they might be. You asked the question about the degree of risk involved in being myopic. In order to answer that question, it is necessary to have a perscription. It is not possible to provide an answer with out it. The probability of getting a detached retina goes up with the degree of myopia. (Reference Dr. Perkins study.) At this point your surgeon is giving you good advice. Otis > > Mike, I am amazed at you jumping on Otis. It's obvious that he has > > found a scientific way to treat macular puckers with a plus lens, but [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Thanks > Raj On Jun 15, 12:16 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > In order to answer that question, it is necessary > to have a perscription. It is not possible [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > At this point your surgeon is giving you good advice. Would this be the opinion of the same Otis Brown who said THIS to Mike Tyner--a practicing optometrist?? [quote] Dear Optometrist Mike, You are correct. You are only allowed to "treat" refractive STATES. You are not an ophthamologist, and are prohibited from treating truly medical conditions. You should have waited for an ophthamologist to respond and proved true medical advice. [/quote] So ... in addressing Mike ... did you MEAN to say "you should have waited for an IDIOT like Otis Brown to respond??" That MUST be what you meant. Right? > On Jun 15, 12:16 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Right? Wow, mate. It only took you 2 hours to come out with those amazingly witty remarks. A world record. Wow, Neil. It only took you 2 hours to come out with these amazingly witty remarks. A world record. > Wow, Neil. It only took you 2 hours to come out with these amazingly > witty remarks. A world record. I'm terribly sorry that some of us around here cannot seem to please you with the timeliness of our responses--always either too quick or too slow. But there really are other things occupying our time. You?? What's your story, fantasy-land child? > You?? What's your story, fantasy-land child? It's pretty clear Neil that you are dealing with a child, someone below the age of 18. Would you speak like that to a child in person? How would you explain yourself to this boy's parents who are likely the same age as you? It's clear you enjoy taunting him, but I would argue that it's not very ethical. If/when you have children, you'll understand what I mean. Signature~RT > In article <1181944874.371653.172...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > -- > ~RT Did you catch the context ... at all ... of what "fantasy-land child" means? It's the anime films, gaming, and make-believe characters that he uses as his online personas. Reading any more into anything I've written says much more about you than it does about me. > Did you catch the context ... at all ... of what "fantasy-land child" > means? It's the anime films, gaming, and make-believe characters that > he uses as his online personas. > > Reading any more into anything I've written says much more about you > than it does about me. I just happened to answer after that email. It's your obsession with answering and attacking everyone of this person's emails I find disturbing. Otis is an adult. The other one is a child. Grow up. Signature~RT > In article <1181964494.627363.78...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I just happened to answer after that email. That was your mistake. I'll accept your apology. > It's your obsession with > answering and attacking everyone of this person's emails I find > disturbing. Otis is an adult. The other one is a child. Grow up. You actually have that backwards. Otis is the child. Kanztepation -- or whatever its name is -- is far more the adult. Please tell me on what basis you declare our new friendly neighborhood troll to be "a child," and what protections you deem appropriate in the case of his/her/its posting history on this forum? I'm going to be more than a tad presumptuous here, but ... If you think that YOUR children deserve universal protection from the consequences of ANY of their actions, then I feel sorry for YOUR kids, but even sorrier for the society they inhabit. How do you think these "children" have come here? Have you considered that Uncle Otis 'enlists' them on other websites to come to his defense against perceived attacks by those who don't believe as he does? That's how they come here. Ponder no longer. Have you considered that this same Uncle Otis constantly engages these kids--kids who are clearly under the Age of Majority (if not the Age of Reason), providing medical advice that has significant risk of harming them--potentially permanently? He uses classic brainwashing techniques to steer them /away/ from eye doctors and keep them "under his spell." But =I'm= hurting this pre-pubescent troll from the animated world of Japanese film? Please don't try to talk about parenting to me. You're making yourself look bad. Take care, Neil Whatever. As I read these NG's I realize there is a population of people who make themselves feel important by posting in these groups, especially to insult and put others down. I know, because I've been guilty of doing it too. There was one poster named Ace who I obsessively answered on this NG and another. Why? The key is in the word "obsessive." So I quite cold turkey and stopped posting anywhere for a year and now I can see objectively how it looks when others do it. But I'm no white knight--you do whatever you want and make whatever excuses you want. Just so you know, the way you see it is not how it looks or reads to me and I imagine others. I've now kill filed you along with the other two I have kill filed already--Otis and <absolutelyinvisible@hotmail.com> so, don't bother replying to me. Maybe someday you'll realize what you're doing and kick yourself for all the time you wasted when you could have been doing something productive with your life. Signature~RT how to change subject pls is there a code what change the subect? Thank,you >Maybe someday you'll realize what you're doing and kick > yourself for all the time you wasted when you could have been doing > something productive with your life. Fortunately, the two are NOT mutually exclusive ;-) >There was one poster named Ace who I obsessively >answered on this NG and another. =D You mean this guy? http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=zq0qTRIAAACA4oepA2zDNPivZFRQwRG O8rhlH0Pnl47z4AZhN98BFg Ah, those were the good times, eh Neil? > In article <1181944874.371653.172...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > -- > ~RT If this persona is indeed a child, it makes me re-think my opinion about spanking... > If this persona is indeed a child, it makes me re-think my opinion > about spanking... I knew already I didn't like you. Don't bother wasting your energy proving it over and over. I once made the mistake of engaging with a young adult on this NG about 1.5 years ago. I really regret that I did. I'll tell you one thing, it doesn't make you "brainy." Signature~RT > In article <1181964790.682435.223...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > -- > ~RT If it comforts you, I can tell you that you are not alone. But then it has never been my goal to appeal to a 2-letter persona (who has a big problem with Neil but not with Revival-Kaze-Suzuki-Zestu et al) or to make some "RT" like me. > In order to answer that question, it is necessary > to have a perscription. It is not possible > to provide an answer with out it. You missed the point. He was myopic before cataract surgery. How is his current "perscription" important? -MT On Jun 14, 3:55 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Raj, > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > > Raj Hello Otis, I donot have my prescription at the moment. I will send it very soon. Is there any way correcting this blurriness/waviness with glasses or contact lens? My surgeon has refused to do the surgery, as he thinks virectomy will bring more issues than doing good. Thanks Raj > On Jun 14, 3:55 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Thanks > Raj- Hide quoted text - The waviness cannot be corrected with glasses. You could get a second opinion about surgery. Vitrectomy is a delicate operation and can cause more retinal problems. Obviously your surgeon feels, that in your specific case, the potential risks outweigh the potential benefits. Dr Judy > - Show quoted text - > Hello there > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Raj Mr Raj If you could give me medical history as to whether you had been using Steriods for a prolonged period of time or on some pshycotrpic drugs,as you have prematured onset of Cataract,Revert Asap.For Macular Pucker was an OCT done? > Mr Raj > If you could give me medical history as to whether you had been using > Steriods for a prolonged period of time or on some pshycotrpic > drugs,as you have prematured onset of Cataract,Revert Asap.For Macular > Pucker was an OCT done? Hello Churie I haven't used any steriods or pshycotrpic drugs at any point of time in my life. I donot know what you are referring as premature onset of cataract, but i underwent IOL to remove cataract , an year ago and treated with laser for removing secondary caract.Yes, they did the OCT, a laser scan [if i am correct] Thanks Raj Raj, a macular pucker (aka epiretinal membrane) is a layer of scar tissue on the macula. It does not cause blindness. Usually, it has little effect on vision. In a minority of cases, though, it can impair vision significantly in the affected eye. The only treatment is surgery to peel the membrane (pucker). I had this surgery last year and now have 20/20 vision in my eye. You can find lots of information about "macular pucker" by using the search engines. Best wishes, and try to stop worrying. > Hello there > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Raj > Raj, a macular pucker (aka epiretinal membrane) is a layer of scar > tissue on the macula. It does not cause blindness. Usually, it has [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > information about "macular pucker" by using the search engines. Best > wishes, and try to stop worrying. many thanks for your reply. It is very encouraging. Hope my thing gets sortedsoon. Unfortunately, my suegeon has refused to perform surgery, as he fears that the surgery will bring in new complications in to my eye. Raj, in most cases, a macular pucker doesn't require any treatment at all. Many people are unaware that they have the condition until their doctor tells them. Unless the pucker affects your vision in a significant way (i.e., you can't read or drive), surgery is not indicated. > > Raj, a macular pucker (aka epiretinal membrane) is a layer of scar > > tissue on the macula. It does not cause blindness. Usually, it has [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > as he fears that the surgery will bring in new complications in to my > eye. |
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.