 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / August 2007Posterior Vitreous Detachment "prevention"?
i just got diagnosed with Posterior Vitreous Detachment. it started EXACTLY last night as i was vacuuming. i started seeing rather large ans crisp strands in my right eye. anyway the opthal.. said it s Posterior Vitreous Detachment. reading up on it, it says there's a change in the gel as one gets older. my question is, is there any preventitive measure i can take,,,,maybe something that will keep the vitrious from making this "change". something to keep it in it's "youthful" state? thanks >my question is, is there any preventitive measure i can take,,,,maybe >something that will keep the vitrious from making this "change". >something to keep it in it's "youthful" state? I have been told that PVD actually protects the retina from detaching, which is a much worse event. When the vitreous is detached, it prevents it from pulling the retina and causing RD. It makes some sense to me, but I don't know much more. Why don't you ask your ophthalmologist? To your question, I don't know of any way of preventing PVD, which usually requires no treatment.  SignatureMsBrainy >my question is, is there any preventitive measure i can take,,,,maybe >something that will keep the vitrious from making this "change". >something to keep it in it's "youthful" state? > >thanks No i've read all the info about pvd. i went to a doctor and his exam revealed that is what i have. so my question are more for edification than anything else. i have had these floaters for three days and they change each day. the first day was horrific as there appeared something akin to a drop of black ink in still water. since then they have settled to something more like black lint hair, something like what you see on the film an old dusty movie. is this what people are refering to as "cobwebs"? i notice that if i focus on a fixed point, the floaters disappear in about one second. they tend to appear when i shift my eyes in any normal way. so during the course of a day they will constantly appear and disappear as my eyes function normally. also, IF I TURN MY HEAD while focusing on a point, the floaters will disappear that way as well. what is the reason for this? and why, over the course of time, do they "settle" out of view? and what is "showering" of floaters? apparantly, this is a bad sign. > i've read all the info about pvd. i went to a doctor and his exam > revealed that is what i have. so my question are more for edification > than anything else. What, Otis has not yet offered the plus lens for prevention? And Quasimodo-Bates-Eulengerg has not come up yet with anti-strain relaxation + water (contribution of the long forgotten Norwigian Kaze)? And what about carrots? i've read all the info about pvd. i went to a doctor and his exam revealed that is what i have. so my question are more for edification than anything else. i have had these floaters for three days and they change each day. the first day was horrific as there appeared something akin to a drop of black ink in still water. since then they have settled to something more like black lint hair, something like what you see on the film an old dusty movie. is this what people are refering to as "cobwebs"? i notice that if i focus on a fixed point, the floaters disappear in about one second. they tend to appear when i shift my eyes in any normal way. so during the course of a day they will constantly appear and disappear as my eyes function normally. also, IF I TURN MY HEAD while focusing on a point, the floaters will disappear that way as well. what is the reason for this? and why, over the course of time, do they "settle" out of view? and what is "showering" of floaters? apparantly, this is a bad sign > and what is "showering" of floaters? apparantly, this is a bad sign if you have an abrupt change in the number or density of floaters it could indicate release of blood and/or pigment into the vitreous. this could happen if you have an acute retinal detachment. the possibility of retinal detachment (RD) is the reason why "showering" is a bad sign. if you have gone to your eye doctor when you first noticed your floaters (as it appears you have), and he/she has dilated you and examined your retina and told you that you have posterior vitreal detachment (PVD) and not RD, then all is well. you did exactly what you need to do by eliminating the possibility of RD. sometimes floaters can position themselves in a very annoying region of the vitreous where they are quite noticeable. a bad place to have a floater is near the macula and in the outermost portion of the vitreous very close to the retina. such floaters cast a very distinct shadow on the retina which is the reason why you even see them at all. Not to worry. they will very likely move away plus you will adjust to them. does any activity aggravate a situation? intense exercise?,,,heavy lifting?,,,etc etc. > Not to worry. they will very likely move away plus you will adjust to > them. > does any activity aggravate a situation? intense exercise?,,,heavy > lifting?,,,etc etc. Sometimes it seems that way--I think it's just coincidental. Both of my VDs occurred after I was running on a treadmill and working out at the gym. But the ophthalmologist didn't think that's what "caused" it, and said not to worry. Said it was a normal event due to aging. If there's bleeding involved, though, that's another story--your doctor would tell you what activities to avoid and for how long. C66 > > does any activity aggravate a situation? intense exercise?,,,heavy > > lifting?,,,etc etc. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > C66 Funny, my pvd also occurred right after I got off the treadmill. So I think the activity did precipitate it although it would have happened eventually anyway. That was three years ago and one retina specialist said the other eye had already had a pvd--he said they don't always produce a Weiss ring floater--and the other retina specialist said he didn't think it had occurred yet in the other eye. Mine had no bleeding, just sudden appearance of a huge, very annoying Weiss ring floater and flashes, which eventually subsided. The floater, however, despite doctors' assurances that it would "sink out of view" or fade away, or something like that, is still there and if it hasn't decreased in its annoyance factor after three years, I doubt it ever will. Just hope the other one really has detached already and I don't have a second huge black floater in my future. -Gudrun > does any activity aggravate a situation? intense exercise?,,,heavy > lifting?,,,etc etc. > > > Not to worry. they will very likely move away plus you will adjust to > > them. relax! think of something else. > > does any activity aggravate a situation? intense exercise?,,,heavy > > lifting?,,,etc etc. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > relax! think of something else. Yes, this is the best advice possible. There is a treatment for PVD. It is permanent and effective. It is called the Colt 45 method. No more PVD, no more problems full stop. Short of this, there is nothing you can do. Stop whining, get used to it, it ain't going away. >There is a treatment for PVD. It is permanent and effective. It is >called the Colt 45 method. No more PVD, no more problems full stop. > >Short of this, there is nothing you can do. Stop whining, get used to >it, it ain't going away. Maybe you should try the Colt 45 method. That would cure your idiotic posting problem. Get used to it. I'd love to. Come around any time and I'll show you in person. >I'd love to. Come around any time and I'll show you in person. Sounds like you're walking dead, anyway. On Jul 24, 7:31 pm, nellie4...@mindspring.com wrote: > >I'd love to. Come around any time and I'll show you in person. > > Sounds like you're walking dead, anyway. You need a little context here. Fewer and fewer eye doctors (you know: the ones who actually CAN help people with issues) post here. They STOP posting here because of Otis Brown, and his occasional retinue (absolutely insufferable@hotmail.net, in all of his identities, is the current version). Any doctor who comes here--for no money--and helps people as they do deserves a break. If you'd dealt with Otis, et al, for YEARS ... as so many of us have ... you'd understand a whole lot better than I'm guessing you do. He's the unwanted house guest that hurts your friends and family, but will never leave. >On Jul 24, 7:31 pm, nellie4...@mindspring.com wrote: >> >I'd love to. Come around any time and I'll show you in person. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >He's the unwanted house guest that hurts your friends and family, but >will never leave. You're right. Doctors are certainly welcome and provide an insight into the state of the art and what works. I also like to see some researchers post here. I'd like to see what innovative research is going on - perhaps their answers would be a little better than suggesting taking a Colt .45 to one's head. These people are evermore complaining about Otis and what a liar/ psycho/evil old man he is, but the truth is it is not serving anything more than their personal self ego. Perhaps it makes them feel 'big' when they are able to ridicule Otis without fear of a successful contradiction. Time and time again I have been trying to show them that if they were to simply stop arguing, take a look around and see that their bickering is really very childish and unnecessary, that perhaps if they were to only ignore those trolls who so highly bother them, that and only in that case can productive discussion ever emerge. Yet they continue to squabble amongst themselves like the little nursery children, and they fail to see that it is not Otis, but themselves who are causing the intelligent and learned men among us to leave in annoyance and impatience. It is true that Otis irritates a number of participants in this newsgroup, but this is no excuse for the sodden state in which this community has been left. One day, maybe, I hope that they will see that all they have done was in vain, and by allowing one man, one man alone, to destroy their community with such ease, they have proven themselves among the weak minded. I have shown them the path to escape this dangerous road that will lead to the certain doom of sci.med.vision. In spite of this, they continue to reply to Otis' posts, thus in a self defeating attempt they lend him a certain merit of credibility which they had originally sought to destroy. It is pitiable; what kind of a ridiculous game they do play at? These people are evermore complaining about Otis and what a liar/ psycho/evil old man he is, but the truth is it is not serving anything more than their personal self ego. Perhaps it makes them feel 'big' when they are able to ridicule Otis without fear of a successful contradiction. Time and time again I have been trying to show them that if they were to simply stop arguing, take a look around and see that their bickering is really very childish and unnecessary, that perhaps if they were to only ignore those trolls who so highly bother them, that and only in that case can productive discussion ever emerge. Yet they continue to squabble amongst themselves like the little nursery children, and they fail in their self denial to see that it is not Otis, but themselves who are causing the intelligent and learned men among us to leave in annoyance and impatience. It is true that Otis irritates a number of participants in this newsgroup, but this is no excuse for the sodden state in which this community has been left. One day, maybe, I hope that they will see that all they have done was in vain, and by allowing one man, one man alone, to destroy their community with such ease, they have proven themselves among the weak and feeble minded. I have shown them the path to escape this dangerous road that will lead to the certain doom of sci.med.vision. In spite of this, they continue to reply to Otis' posts, thus in a self defeating attempt they lend him a certain merit of credibility which they had originally sought to destroy. It is pitiable; what kind of a ridiculous game they do play at? Edwardo On Jul 27, 3:16 am, Edwardo Alphonse Elric <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Time and time again I have been trying to show them > that if they were to simply stop arguing, take a look around and see > that their bickering is really very childish and unnecessary, that > perhaps if they were to only ignore those trolls who so highly bother > them, that and only in that case can productive discussion ever > emerge. And, oh, by the way ... if you weren't so busy creating new identities and being an obnoxious a.shole, you might notice things like Otis's little "Myopia Free" forum--something just short of a THOUSAND messages, and--I'd wager-->90% of them written BY Otis AND TO Otis. In other words: NOT responding to Otis does NOTHING to stem his incessant lying and hurtful advice. Dear Edwardo, Thanks for your commentary. I have posted it on my site as the remarks of a neutral observer -- for my readers. When PClar intimates that the Chinese should execute Steve Leung because of his PREVENTIVE beliefs -- then I truly object to that. I certinaly only argue that a person look at the scientific facts themselves, (concerning prevention) and with guidance from a behaviorial optometrist, choose to use the plus (at the threshold) when it could be effective in the sense of prevention. It is my impression that these majority-opinion ODs are spending more time in defending "the practice", rather than in assisting a person in making an informed choice in the matter of plus-prevention. Just one man's opinion. Otis On Jul 27, 6:16 am, Edwardo Alphonse Elric <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote: > These people are evermore complaining about Otis and what a liar/ > psycho/evil old man he is, but the truth is it is not serving anything [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Edwardo <absolutelyinvincible@hotmail.com> wrote > These people are evermore complaining about Otis and what a liar/ > psycho/evil old man he is, but the truth is it is not serving anything > more than their personal self ego. Perhaps it makes them feel 'big' > when they are able to ridicule Otis without fear of a successful > contradiction. Time and time again I have been trying to show them Otis is free to believe anything he likes. But when he starts spreading his shite, preaching with fervor things that aren't true, you should step in and point out that real life isn't the way he believes it is. -MT > Otis is free to believe anything he likes. But when he starts spreading his > shite, preaching with fervor things that aren't true, you should step in and > point out that real life isn't the way he believes it is. Or, you could start paying a little respect to the intelligence of those who come into this newsgroup and allow them to make that decision themselves. On Jul 27, 6:21 am, Edwardo Alphonse Elric <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Or, you could start paying a little respect to the intelligence of > those who come into this newsgroup and allow them to make that > decision themselves. You, under all of your various personalities here, are still an idiot and an obnoxious a.shole. Elderly people--to cite just one example--are constantly defrauded in the States--not because of any lack of intelligence, but because of a certain trusting naivete, as often as not. Somebody desperately seeking the answer to what they think is an overwhelming health problem (even simple, low myopia) can skip right by all of their critical thinking skills and inherent intelligence to hear what they want to hear. It WOULD make a nice argument if you could convince people that YOU think they're smart while WE think they're not. Unfortunately, like EVERYTHING that you type, and virtually EVERYTHING that Otis types, it's simply untrue. But that doesn't seem to matter to either of you, now does it? > Unfortunately, like EVERYTHING that you type, and virtually EVERYTHING > that Otis types, it's simply untrue. Neil, are you hereby implying that (God forbid!) Otis is occasionally CORRECT? And not completely on the bottom of the hierarchy? I'm shocked... Dave > > Unfortunately, like EVERYTHING that you type, and virtually EVERYTHING > > that Otis types, it's simply untrue. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I'm shocked... He has something like 10,000+ posts on the Internet. Even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while. > > > Unfortunately, like EVERYTHING that you type, and virtually EVERYTHING > > > that Otis types, it's simply untrue. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while. And they're even better at truffles, for what it's worth! <absolutelyinvincible@hotmail.com> wrote > Or, you could start paying a little respect to the intelligence of > those who come into this newsgroup and allow them to make that > decision themselves. Oh sure, that'll work. Otis shouldn't have to explain why HIS science is different from everybody else's. -MT Mike, 'explaining why HIS science is different' is well and good, and there would exist no justified objection against doing so. On the other hand, if you are implying that the discussion should be twisted into the petty whining, ad-hominem attacks, and downright childish name calling contests, as it frequently does: do you expect me to play along, stay silenced, not to rebel, for your mere amusement and self ego? On Jul 27, 12:01 pm, Edwardo Alphonse Elric <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Mike, 'explaining why HIS science is different' is well and good, and > there would exist no justified objection against doing so. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > me to play along, stay silenced, not to rebel, for your mere amusement > and self ego? Clean your own act before you preach to others, Mr. Morality. Of course, 'explaining why his science is different' is well and good, and no righteous man would dare to object. On the other hand, if you are implying that the discussion should be twisted into the petty whining, ad-hominem attacks, and downright childish name calling contests, as it frequently does: do you expect me to play along, stay silenced, to stand aside without rebel, for your mere amusement and self ego? <absolutelyinvincible@hotmail.com> wrote in message > Of course, 'explaining why his science is different' is well and > good, and no righteous man would dare to object. On the other hand, if > you are implying that the discussion should be twisted into the petty > whining, ad-hominem attacks, and downright childish name calling Were you addressing this to me? Usually I attack ideas, not people. But I'm certainly guilty of questioning the personal motives some who continually post disproven ideas about myopia. There are only two Otis-isms that I generally reply to. 1) Minus lenses cause myopia to worsen. It simply doesn't happen when large groups of people wearing or not wearing glasses are compared. Otis has never shown us a similar comparison indicating otherwise. It just doesn't happen. 2) Wearing "plus" or undercorrecting or avoiding glasses altogether will IMPROVE myopia. That doesn't happen either. I can't understand why Otis thinks eye doctors conspire to keep this a great secret. I'd jump in with both feet if there were any solid evidence that undercorrection ("plus") it actually WORKS in humans. Now tell me "maybe it hasn't been tested just right." -MT Doctors are certainly welcome and provide an insight > into the state of the art and what works. I also like to see some > researchers post here. I'd like to see what innovative research is You came to the wrong place sweety. Researchers wouldn't waste their time with your crap. You want some answers, but you ain't got the guts to listen or read them. There is no prevention. How stupid are you? Shall I repeat, THERE IS NO SOLUTION< NO PREVENTION. The offer is still there. Come over any time and i can put you out of our misery. >Doctors are certainly welcome and provide an insight >> into the state of the art and what works. I also like to see some [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >The offer is still there. Come over any time and i can put you out of >our misery. Thanks. I think I'll refrain from feeding the trolls, sweety. Neil Crooks, > You need a little context here. Fewer and fewer eye doctors (you > know: the ones who actually CAN help people with issues) post here. It is you who needs a little context here. You are so wrapped within your own ignorance that you fail to see why the intelligent ophthalmologists who once inhabited this newsgroup, have left, blaming Otis for something you have caused yourself. Wake up, you snobbish old brat. > They STOP posting here because of Otis Brown, and his occasional > retinue (absolutely insuffera...@hotmail.net, in all of his > identities, is the current version). Of course, blame me and Otis -- you know,I guess it'll probably sting more to admit your own hand in the problem. No wonder, you are a weak minded fool. > Any doctor who comes here--for no money--and helps people as they do > deserves a break. If you'd dealt with Otis, et al, for YEARS ... as > so many of us have ... you'd understand a whole lot better than I'm > guessing you do. No one is ASKING you to 'deal' with Otis, you idiot. > He's the unwanted house guest that hurts your friends and family, but > will never leave. He's also the unwanted house guest who is constantly offered to stay for breakfast, lunch, tea, and dinner. It is you who feeds the troll, it is also you who appears slightly hypocritical with these idiotic remarks. Kakuzu Reverting to one of your myriad aliases does NOT make you less of an obnoxious a.shole. And yet, you are around about the biggest obnoxious a.shole I've come across, and that's saying something when you consider that I've come across Ms. Brainy. You are too feeble and hypocritically minded to admit that you could possibly have a hand in the problem you have created! Wake up from your pride, old man! And yet, Neil, you are around about the biggest obnoxious a.shole I've come across, and that's saying something when you consider that I've come across Ms. Brainy. You are too feeble and hypocritically minded to admit that you could possibly have a hand in the problem you have created! Wake up from your pride, old man! Kakuzu > And yet, Neil, you are around about the biggest obnoxious a.shole I've > come across, and that's saying something when you consider that I've > come across Ms. Brainy. You are too feeble and hypocritically minded > to admit that you could possibly have a hand in the problem you have > created! Wake up from your pride, old man! Or what? You'll create another screen name?? [shudder] Go away, little child, and take Uncle Otie with you. > Sounds like you're walking dead, anyway. No, walking sane. You need to get a life cactus head, instead of getting upset by my words, do something worthwhile yourself. AsPBL would be a good start.. |
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.