 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / March 2008Info from my eye doc
Hi, Thought I'd write to my eye doc regarding all the barrage of tests I had. Skimming over, I remember he suggested I had a fourth nerve palsy, perhaps of recent onset if I hadn't noticed anything previously. What he writes says that what they have actually seen is a tendency for my left eye to be higher than my right eye. But he believes this to be minimal and non worthy of management with prisms (depends how much double vision Im getting, which in real life is none) He says that with the Worth 4 Dots, I definitely see double vision but that doesn't mean my visual system is being placed under stress. With the Frisby Davis Distance test for steriopsis, he says that I don't perceive fine depth on any of the stereopsis tests. He says that this doesn't matter in the normal course of daily living as it's not necessary for most tasks in life. He has given me some information on my fusion with prisms etc. He says that my horizontal prism fusion range for near is 10 prism dioptres base out to 8 prism dioptres base in, and for distance is 4 prism dioptres base out to 2 prism dioptres base in. He says my fusion range is not large and I have a tendency to breakdown on my prism fusion range quite easily and this is all related to the fact that I don't use my two eyes specificially together. He also adds that he has done an electrical assesment of my eyes, involving an ERG and VEP both of which were normal. He then did a photosensitivity test which measrues the sensitivity to light for a variety of frequences of flashing light which demonstrated that I was hypersensitive and suggestive that I have migraine. He concludes that he belives I am sensitive to light and have migraine. I have a small problem with eye alignment which I should cope with but if there was a problem, then I would consider prisms. 1) In what circumstances might you need to perceive fine depth? Is this why despite being long sighted I perceive some signs as slightly blurry? 2) Any thoughts on those prism measurements? 3) Could migraine explain those intermittent eye issues I had? 4) Let me know any other thoughts you might have. Cya Simon >He concludes that he belives I am sensitive to light and have migraine. Wow, all those tests just to figure that out.. Anyway, both are readily and easily curable by the relief obtained with rest methods. What you should know is this: it is a waste of your time to describe and ponder over the many manifestations of imperfect sight, as Dr Bates has advised. Instead you should ask not stupid questions about various prism measurements of no worth to you, but you should ask questions which pertain to the cure of imperfect sight, or of the characteristics of Perfect Sight, e.g., how can I be enabled to see the white halos, and what can I do to aid my imagination? That is a valuable question that will bring a real enlightenment. >> He concludes that he belives I am sensitive to light and have migraine. > > Wow, all those tests just to figure that out.. Aren't you that prick that everyone hates? Perhaps you'd like to know what my vision disturbances were and why they felt "all those tests" were necessary? You wouldn't be interested. You're just interested in talking. > Anyway, both are readily and easily curable by the relief obtained > with rest methods. What you should know is this: it is a waste of your > time to describe and ponder over the many manifestations of imperfect > sight, as Dr Bates Two words, f.ck off. Your advice isn't welcome to my ears. What is very remarkable is that tests are needed for this man's physician to come to the conclusion that his patient is: A) Sensitive to light B) Has a Migraine Now are both these things not surely already observable to the patient in everyday life, if he has these problems? Why does one require a doctor to tell oneself what he, by common sense, would already know? > What is very remarkable is that tests are needed for this man's > physician to come to the conclusion that his patient is: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > in everyday life, if he has these problems? Why does one require a > doctor to tell oneself what he, by common sense, would already know? Mmmm... such cliched self indulgent ignorant crap. Tell me, how much familiarity do you have with my case history? I would guess none. Do you know what symptoms I presented to the eye doctor? I would guess you wouldn't. And I presume you're aware of all the potential underlying causes of visual disturbances and that to thorighly investigate a patient is actually pretty good. I could have had MS or some other neurological issue, you inconsiderate f.ck, you filthy piece of scum. How dare you insinuate it is unnecessary to conduct such tests. Are you aware that physically one of my eyes is higher than the other? Of course, I guess if I imagine it to be otherwise then I can make it disappear LOL! You're a fruit! There is nothing wrong with testing. It was merely a point of comedy to have all those tests and come to such simple conclusions. It was quite ironic. But, testing your vision frequently is very advisable. Where did I say otherwise, dear sir? > There is nothing wrong with testing. But you seem to think that too much testing shouldn't be done? "Wow, all those tests just to figure that out.." > It was merely a point of comedy to have all those tests and come to > such simple conclusions. It was quite ironic. You're a fool if that's your train of thought. It was actually quite a complicated problem, so complicated not a lot of people (if any at all) have described my serious of problems but it so happens that the conclusion is quite simple. It's no comedy and you do not understand irony. > But, testing your vision frequently is very advisable. Where did I > say otherwise, dear sir? "Wow, all those tests just to figure that out.." You insinuate that things can be diagnosed simply. Your ignorance and arrogance speaks volumes. For the daft fool at the back trying to push medical advice, a couple years back I experienced a sort of magnified goldfish bowl effect to my vision where text was almost jumping off a page at me. I wasn't quite sure what was happening but went to my optometrist, the first one tried putting me in prism glasses but I wasn't sure so went to another one who said that would be a bad thing. See, not all opticians settle for glasses. But here I had problems with the Mallet Near Fixation Disparity Test and the Maddox Red Line test (which indicates prism issues), but because there was no obvious cause and no other issues, I was referred to the hospital who put me through a barrage of tests. This includes checking the optic nerve, checking for neurological issues, possibly MS, checking for migraines etc. The MRI reveleaed demyleination on the brain but no other issues and MS was ruled out while some of the other tests suggested a hypersensitivity to light. I still see you've failed to address my points. > I still see you've failed to address my points. And always will. Simon, I'm sorry you still have these issues, and no apparent resolution. I'm smart enough to know that your case is way too complicated for me to offer anything but the best wishes for continued improvement. You've hit the nail right on the head with "Atchoo," though. I cheer you on as you fend him/her/it off! Neil >> I still see you've failed to address my points. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > complicated for me to offer anything but the best wishes for continued > improvement. Hiya Neil. Hope all is well with you. Just hope someone can offer some opinion on the results. I've got some pretty good indications from my eye doc, and migraine sounds plausible. Some of the experts here asked once for me to get my prism information, so I thought I'd post it and see what their thoughts are. Is it good, bad? He's recommended some Comfort 41 lenses - perhaps Irlen syndrome might be worth a look too, as it seems to use a similar method of correction with coloured lenses. > You've hit the nail right on the head with "Atchoo," though. I cheer > you on as you fend him/her/it off! > > Neil OK, I'm very sorry to have made assumptions of your case. In a rush to read your post all I saw was 'concludes he believes I am sensitive to light and have migraine. Now, this sounded very funny to me after the undertaking of such a long host of tests. Then please forgive my ignorance on your medical history and on the nature of your problem for now. Now, it's true I have no care other than pushing my own agenda. Of course, if a doctor tells you to take his medicine, do you babble and argue with yourself over the matter? No, you take his medicine knowing that you can be cured, and that you should be eager to do all you can to be cured, and follow his advice. This is especially true in the cure of imperfect sight, it seems the patient talks, talks, and talks more, but this comes usually to very little benefit in the person's cure. He will describe in detail the infinite manifestations of his own problem, but he will have no initiative on the subject of relief. Somehow, he believes that the more he talks, the more he can be benefited. Now this is wrong, and to overcome this we have to be strong and 100% confident, and even though it will hurt the patient at first, we have to practically tell them 'shut up and listen', and make them do as we ask. When they see for a moment, the beautiful flashes of perfect vision themselves, they often need no further encouragement and continue the practice by themselves. I did assume by default, automatically and wrongly that you are having problems with vision - on the basis that so many people who come here I see also have problems or some defect and imperfection with their sight. So, I mistakenly extrapolated the situation of the majority to your situation. THIS IS A MISTAKE ON MY BEHALF, I APOLOGIZE. But, if you can forgive me for all of this, I feel with absolute confidence that you will be helped by the great Dr.Bates. Now one should also understand that: even those with already normal vision have attained supernormal vision, and those with supernormal have attianed a degree of microsopic or telescopic. Knowing this, no one in this world, not even those with the most fine eyes man has ever seen, is doing himself a justice by ignoring the methods of cure of imperfect sight. You also ask: does Bates talk about 'fine depth stereopsis'? Most likely he does, somewhere or other in his work, but not with those precise words. It would take long to go through his entire works and find out. However it is not relevant, all is relevant is what you are doing to preserve the Perfect Sight you have right now. So it seems that the overview of your situation is this: You have a worry that, sometime in the future, you will be afflicted by a defect of the eye. For that reason, you have gone to see a doctor and carried out a multitude of prism tests and gone through a great ordeal of time such that you do all that is possible in order to allow you to avoid problems of the eye later in life. In that case, you should continue to practice the methods of the normal eye, maintaining central fixation with the methods advised, and you CAN BE SURE THAT NO PROBLEM WILL EVER COME TO YOUR SIGHT, EVER. > OK, I'm very sorry to have made assumptions of your case. In a rush to > read your post all I saw was 'concludes he believes I am sensitive to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Of course, if a doctor tells you to take his medicine, do you babble > and argue with yourself over the matter? Why would I argue with myself over what someone else says? I would argue with them if I didn't agree with it. > No, you take his medicine > knowing that you can be cured, and that you should be eager to do all > you can to be cured, and follow his advice. Maybe you do. I listen to others who have had similar experiences and what worked for them. I don't listen out for placebo imaginary magic voodoo medicine from a 100+ year old quack. > You have a worry that, sometime in the future, you will be afflicted > by a defect of the eye. For that reason, you have gone to see a doctor > and carried out a multitude of prism tests and gone through a great > ordeal of time such that you do all that is possible in order to allow > you to avoid problems of the eye later in life. Again you're wrong. I went there to find out what was wrong and what would be recommended to aid. As it is now, I don't need anything. Of course I 've read your most recent waffle. If you can't see something clearly, just imagine it, and you'll be able to read it. Of course, in my mind, that can only be done if you've seen something before. So what happens if you're faced a new passage of text? Maybe you could get a pair of glasses and not strain and struggle trying to see. LOL! Cya Simon Yes, so you went to the doctor to find out what's wrong. Why would you feel the compulsion to do that in the first place if you did not have any concern with your vision? There must be something in your mind in the form of an angst, and you are seeking help on this group, sci.med.vision, to see what the doctors make of these various measurements and if there is anything to aid your vision and avoid problems, isn't it? But, you have asked a sensible and good question, what a person following the methods of Perfect Sight should distinguish as a right one. Your question was: what happens when you are faced with an unfamiliar text? Dr Bates has stated the simple truths, through his experience with many thousands of patients, that if you are faced with an unfamiliar object you should: i) Not stare, strain, or make an effort to see ii) Remember perfectly any other object If you remember any one thing perfectly, all other things are seen perfectly at the same time. You cannot remember imperfectly and see perfectly, and the inverse is true. That means that, let's say you remember in your mind the black period, you will become immediately able to read an unfamiliar text, or see an unfamiliar object, at will. However, the mistaken belief, the easy trap to fall into, is that you hold the black period stationary, and try to hold it in your mind, which is utterly against the principles of central fixation and of perfect sight. No, you allow it into your mind, you keep that intention of having it in your mind and not force it in, and you have to let it swing around freely. When you can do this, at any given time in any given place, you will have a very deep control of the mind, that not many, not even the most successfully treated patients of Dr. Bates have been able to obtain. If you can do this, then you are truly a prodigy of the mind. Not even pain will stop you, as pain cannot coincide with perfect memory. The mind is a very remarkable instrument, but we just need to utilize it. > If you remember any one thing perfectly, all other things are seen > perfectly at the same time. You cannot remember imperfectly and see > perfectly, and the inverse is true. There we go again. There are blind and legally blind people with photographic memories. My vision is just awful, and yet I have a near-photographic memory. So ... in short ... there goes that theory. Of course ... it HAD to go. It was attached to all of the other trash theories that you espouse ;-) Now let us consider the statements of Dr.Bates carefully. [.. A person can remember what his own name is without having a mental picture of each letter of the name. This is an example of what is known as an abstract memory. A concrete memory is a more perfect memory, because one remembers a mental picture of the object ..] So the answer lies in the what you mean exactly by 'photographic memory'. What Bates is describing here, is, not so much the ability to remember exactly the events of something from a long time ago, or say, to retain the names of many hundreds of people whom you had only been acquainted with for a few moments in childhood, now being in your adulthood. So these are names - something you could call, an abstract memory. It is true that a perfect memory, as Bates calls it, will also affect the abstract memory in a very positive and direct way. When central fixation is possessed, all of the mind's faculties are greatly improved, and that especially includes the memory. But the thing you must essentially understand is that, Bates is referring to the retention a colour of some kind, known as VISUAL MEMORY. So I ask you Mr Brooks, are you able to remember perfectly any colour? Are you able to remember a small black period, constantly, freely, without effort, swinging easily? If so then I believe you should have perfect sight at this very moment. Now if you do respond to me by saying 'Yes I can see a perfectly black period constantly without effort and swinging around' and you say 'there has been no effect on my vision', then there are two explanations. Explanation number one is: you lie. Explanation number two is: my beliefs shatter in their entirety and the thousands of people Bates cured, or who have been cured, by the usage of a perfect memory, were liers, and the event never occured. Thus, "the Bates Method is a load of crap." > Now let us consider the statements of Dr.Bates carefully. > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > usage of a perfect memory, were liers, and the event never occured. > Thus, "the Bates Method is a load of crap." I'd recommend going with "B." A few weeks after my wife and I looked at a prospective new home, we were discussing a particular color within the house, from memory. At the hardware store, I picked out the color that I remembered, while she picked out the color that she remembered. When the home builder sent us the actual color swatches, I had picked out the exact color ... from among dozens and dozens of similar shades. I'd recommend you go with "B." And I don't lie. Now, as to your attempts at a straw man argument -- putting YOUR words into MY mouth -- nice try. What I said is what I meant: I have what's been termed a near photographic memory, and seem to be able to retain / very/ clear memories of color, over a relatively long period of time. I'm sorry this doesn't comport with your incredibly-closely-held beliefs, but ... that's not my problem. Your problem SHOULD be to revise your hypothesis based on things that DON'T fit it. But ... as always ... that's something that neither you nor Otis ever endeavors. Did I send you an invite to the NG, faith.vision yet?? > Yes, so you went to the doctor to find out what's wrong. Why would you > feel the compulsion to do that in the first place if you did not have > any concern with your vision? Did I say I didn't have any concern over my vision? I do have concern over my vision even now, but I do not present with any symptoms. Even while drunk, I can argue my case better than you. > There must be something in your mind in > the form of an angst, Angst? > and you are seeking help on this group, > sci.med.vision, to see what the doctors make of these various > measurements and if there is anything to aid your vision and avoid > problems, isn't it? No. I am currently presenting with no problems and am happy. But I would like to know what these measurements mean. It has nothing to do with aiding my vision and avoiding problems, considering my eye doc has even said that I should not be concerned. So no. Your assertion is false. > But, you have asked a sensible and good question, what a person > following the methods of Perfect Sight should distinguish as a right > one. Your question was: what happens when you are faced with an > unfamiliar text? No. The question is, when faced with unfamiliar text and without good eyesight. > Dr Bates has stated the simple truths, through his experience with > many thousands of patients, that if you are faced with an unfamiliar > object you should: > > i) Not stare, strain, or make an effort to see Quite reasonable. If you have to strain, you have problems. > ii) Remember perfectly any other object I can hardly remember what I did yesterday, but that's not to say that my vision is in anyway poor, as I have 20/20 vision. > If you remember any one thing perfectly, all other things are seen > perfectly at the same time. Bullshit. If I remember something, I can see something else? What a load of crap. > You cannot remember imperfectly and see > perfectly, Yet I somehow manage to do it? Doesn't quite equate in your world does it? And yes, although Im asking about vision issues, these are PREVIOUS vision issues.4 > and the inverse is true. That means that, let's say you > remember in your mind the black period, you will become immediately > able to read an unfamiliar text, or see an unfamiliar object, at will. You talk waffle. How much money do you make from peddling Bates' "solutions"? [SNIP WAFFLE ABOUT BLACK PERIODS] > If you can do this, then you are truly a prodigy of the mind. Not even > pain will stop you, as pain cannot coincide with perfect memory. The > mind is a very remarkable instrument, but we just need to utilize it. WTF! Please, remove yourself from this thread. I am not inviting your further participation which is detrimental. I am asking you once and nicely, please do not reply to my threads, and I will not reply to yours? I will provide you a grace period of one reply to acknowledge. Cheers Simon OK, you still didn't read what I said about distinguishment between visual memory and abstract memory. But if you wish that I leave this thread, then I will do so. OK, I apologize. Maybe this dispute is more over an unfortunate series of misunderstandings than anything else - the things that I find funny are different from the things you are amused by, but in any case there was no offense intended and definitely, I was not trying t o imply that thorough tests of the eye are unnecessary. In fact, I very much hope that you someday find relief of your condition and that your suffering should end. However, even if one of your eyes is physically at a higher point than the other, this does not mean you should be in such a despair. You are just as curable as is Brooks, as is Dr Tyner, as is everyone here who is willing to practice the methods of cure. The brain inverts the picture given to it from the retina, so why will any new limit ave to be imposed to the mind in your own case? Cannot the image be fused just the same? The mind can adapt to anything, that is the crucial thing. There are echolocatists in the world who are able, by producing a clicking sound, to form an image in their visual cortex with no stimulation what so ever from their optic nerve. > OK, I apologize. > > Maybe this dispute is more over an unfortunate series of > misunderstandings than anything else - Misunderstandings? Lets see. You come running into a conversation without asking questions, without knowledge. You just don't care other than pushing your own agenda. You don't have a "misunderstanding" because you have made no attempt to understand. > the things that I find funny are different from the things you are > amused by, Of which you have said on more than one occasion, you find it funny that people can undertake tests to reach a simple conclusion despite how complicated the issue might be. I don't mean to be insulting, but you have a lot of growing up to do. > but in any case there was no offense intended and definitely, I was > not trying t o imply that thorough tests of the eye are unnecessary. > In fact, I very much hope that you someday find relief of your > condition and that your suffering should end. Just like most of everyone else on the internet, you're too ready to assume rather than ask questions. I am not still suffering these issues but I am concious that the issues may return at some point in the future. > However, even if one of your eyes is physically at a higher point > than the other, this does not mean you should be in such a despair. Again you assume. I am not in despair. As my eye doc said, it is largely of little importance. Unless I experience issues in the real world, then there's no concern. > You are just as curable as is Brooks, as is Dr Tyner, as is everyone > here who is willing to practice the methods of cure. Ahhh. Bates. Well, who says I need curing? Im merely quite curious as to what these dioptre prism measurements mean and what this issue with fine depth is. Tell me, does Bates talk about fine depth stereopsis? > The brain inverts the picture given to it from the retina, so why > will any new limit ave to be imposed to the mind in your own case? > Cannot the image be fused just the same? The mind can adapt to > anything, that is the crucial thing. Yes. And it does. But surely even you can acknowledge there is a limit to the fusion. > There are echolocatists in the world who are able, by producing a > clicking sound, to form an image in their visual cortex with no > stimulation what so ever from their optic nerve. So what? I dream at night, often without stimulation from my optic nerve. But that doesn't mean that I am capable of seeing. |
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.