Medical Forum / General / Vision / April 2008
Vitreous detachment - thousands of "Floaters"
|
|
Thread rating:  |
meade25@gmail.com - 08 Apr 2008 20:47 GMT Hi. I'm 60 and am in the middle of a vitreous detachment. It started with a symmetrical, snowflake-like pattern in the middle of my vision. That was in Dec. '07. That pattern has darkened some over time, making it increasingly difficult to read or view a computer screen. In Jan. '08, I noticed some distortion of vertical lines, and this has also pregressed somewhat. Yesterday I experienced some flashes of lifht during lunch, appearing like rings around the periphery of my field of view. These continued for about 2 hours. Afterward, I noticed a couple of large floaters in that eye, which had not been there before. I have some understanding of all this, having visited a retinal specialist in Dec. He mentioned the possibility of a macural hole developing and thought it would happen within 1 month, giving it about a 50-50 chance. Well, so far, that hasn;t happened. But right after the flashes and floaters, yesterday, there appears to be a veil of thousands of little dots covering the vision in that eye. They move as a unit, not floating individually, nor do they swirl or change position relative to one another, but they generally follow the direction of my sight like floaters do. They are fairly uniform and comprise a blanket over the total field of vision. I notice them only when I view the sky or a white background. Does anyone know what this is, or has anyone experienced something like this? I've read about blood getting into the eye, but it sounds like there is more movement.
John Sheridan - 08 Apr 2008 21:49 GMT >...yesterday, there appears to be a veil of >thousands of little dots covering the vision in that eye. They move as >a unit, not floating individually, nor do they swirl or change >position relative to one another I'm not an eye doctor but this sounds scary to me. I agree with the opinion that you should see an ophthalmologist ASAP about this if you haven't done so already...
Neil Brooks - 09 Apr 2008 15:52 GMT Mead: please forgive me for intruding on your topic. My sincere wishes for a healthy outcome on your current situation.
This is just a short, off-topic note to Zetsu, Jason, Otis, and any others in their category.
Who's going to help these people when -- as may well be your TRUE goal -- all the eye docs stop participating on this site?
The only one left, really, is Mike Tyner. Nobody else does anything more than occasionally drop by and chime in.
The list of names, of docs who've simply STOPPED participating, is long and distinguished.
And they've all left because of the constant spewing of unsubstantiated tripe by you and those of your ilk.
I genuinely think there's something deeply sociopathic about your apparent lack of concern for people like this original poster -- people who come here out of fear, concern, anxiety, or alarm, and who seek help.
You three -- and others like you -- know nothing about what's emergent and what's non-emergent. Your presence here has very little likelihood of helping anybody, but it has a very realistic probability of hurting people.
I genuinely think you should seek help for this. It really does have markers of antisocial, narcissistic, and/or sociopathic behavior.
Zetsu - 09 Apr 2008 16:32 GMT Neil, I'm not telling Mike or any of them lot to stop posting. I think Dr. Tyner is a very kind and dedicated person if he's spending all his time on here trying to help people. The guy is after all just spreading his knowledge of what he believes is true and right, what he has learnt. And I'm not saying this guy shouldn't get professional help from the orthodox. I'm not trying to control other people's life.
But the irony is, all this vitreous detachment and so forth could have been easily prevented if people did the rest methods in the first place.
So like Tyner, I am just posting what I sincerely believe in and know will be beneficial to others. I am just trying to help like you are. We're all just humans and it's pointless for us to argue.
The larger matter at hand here is that many people in the world are suffering and are not receiving adequate help from the conventional treatment.
It is only reasonable then, that we should strive to change our current methods and devote ourselves to helping all these people. We need to stop working and team up, put an end to the human suffering (which is after all, the original purpose for the field of medicine isn't it?).
Coming here to a sci newsgroup, I would expect all the curiosity _in the world_ from its participants. But you guys just don't seem to show any curiosity at all. No desire to even investigate Dr.Bates' work, which potentially, for you and zillions of other people, could end a whole lot of diseases and suffering.
Calling each other mentally retarded, narcissistic, antisocial or whatever isn't helpful for anyone and doesn't change anything. It's time we work together on this and stop wasting time bickering!
Neil Brooks - 09 Apr 2008 16:50 GMT > Neil, I'm not telling Mike or any of them lot to stop posting. More naive and wishful thinking. The posts of you and your cohorts ARE leading eye doctors to leave.
If you weren't so zealous about your agenda, you'd see that.
> I think > Dr. Tyner is a very kind and dedicated person if he's spending all his [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > help from the orthodox. I'm not trying to control other people's > life. But you're limiting the help they will receive, and you're getting awfully close to ELIMINATING it.
> But the irony is, all this vitreous detachment and so forth could have > been easily prevented if people did the rest methods in the first > place. No. The IRONY is that you believe this, absent any evidence whatsoever EXCEPT FOR your belief.
> So like Tyner, I am just posting what I sincerely believe in and know > will be beneficial to others. I am just trying to help like you are. > We're all just humans and it's pointless for us to argue. No. You're posting based on nothing whatsoever EXCEPT FOR your belief. What Mike (and the former others) post is based on years of clinical practice, evidence, and the outcomes of RCCTs.
You have an old book.
> The larger matter at hand here is that many people in the world are > suffering and are not receiving adequate help from the conventional > treatment. Then form a religion ... on another site. There are LOTS of venues where people seek the alternative perspective. Avail yourself of them.
> It is only reasonable then, that we should strive to change our > current methods and devote ourselves to helping all these people. We [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > whatever isn't helpful for anyone and doesn't change anything. It's > time we work together on this and stop wasting time bickering! Nothing you have just said, or EVER said, changes the basic fact that -- given ANY evidence that ANYTHING you proffer is (to a statistically- significant degree) more effective than placebo -- others will be convinced.
Meanwhile, I'm awfully accurate: your blind faith in your methodology IS having an insidious affect on this newsgroup. People WITH A LONG HISTORY of helping people with eye issues ARE leaving.
The fact that you don't care is ... at the least ... antisocial.
And reprehensible.
You're like a rabid Evangelical Christian who spends all of his free time trying to shout his gospels in a Jewish Synagogue.
It is, at the very least, a horribly disrespectful thing to do, and yet .... you could make the exact same case FOR THAT as you do for this.
IF, that is, you didn't actually give a sh.t about other people.
And that, it seems, IS exactly where we are.
Zetsu - 09 Apr 2008 18:46 GMT I am sorry you feel this way towards me.
However, if indeed I have induced any eye doctors on this forum to leave, then I certainly do not feel I am responsible for their choice in life. If you don't like what I have to say, then kill file me and be done with it. If my posts are have such a great influence on highly respected, professional doctors then I feel that is rather strange. It's very immature on their behalf.
Eye doctors are grown ups. Surely they can think and act for themselves? If they want to leave, then go ahead, but don't be so immature as to put the blame on me. It is similar to the behavior of a toddler, when it doesn't like something it gets upset and stomps off.
It is also interesting to note that this newsgroup was actually not formed for the general public to post their vision complaints. When this newsgroup was originally created, back in 1994, the intent of the creator was that it should be a place where everyone from around the globe could gather and discuss the latest theories and discuss, in general, the systematic side of vision.
This group was not intended as a "clinic" for patients to seek advice, but it has become so over the years. Anyway, I have to have lunch now, so I can't write more. I would like to say then, briefly and bluntly, that I have no intention of continuing this little and pointless bickering with you, Neil, nor with anyone else on the group. If we disagree, then so be it. And let us leave it at that, and go our separate ways.
Neil Brooks - 09 Apr 2008 22:25 GMT > And let us leave it at that, and go our separate ways. s.m.v. gets you.
In return, it loses most of its doctors.
Great deal.
Don W - 09 Apr 2008 23:46 GMT > Anyway, I have to have lunch now, > so I can't write more. Are they bringing it?
otisbrown@embarqmail.com - 10 Apr 2008 00:45 GMT Dear Zetsu,
Well written.
Most professionals have their opinion -- and will respect yours if honestly stated.
If truly professional, they should never attack you for expressing your opinion on any subject.
Or as the late W. F. Buckley said -- it is possible to disagree, without being disagreeable.
Pease,
> I am sorry you feel this way towards me. > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > disagree, then so be it. And let us leave it at that, and go our > separate ways. Neil Brooks - 10 Apr 2008 04:10 GMT Now you like him again, huh?
Schizophrenia among your DSM-IV Dx's, Otis? That's QUITE an impressive list you represent!
Zetsu - 10 Apr 2008 07:23 GMT Neil, another thing I forgot to ask you in my earlier post (I know I said I'd stop arguing, but this is a significant point) is: Where precisely are you founding the claim that eye doctors "are leaving" this group at all?
When I first joined this group, I noted the following as frequent posters: Dr Tyner, Dr Judy, Dr Gemoules and Dr Pclarkii. (That's FOUR doctors in all! How many more do you need than that?)
As of yet I have seen no indication or evidence that any of these people have left the group, nor any suggestion to the effect that they are contemplating it. Since beginning my own participation, I have seen no real increase or reduction in their rate of posting.
So what do you base your statement on? It seems you have a somewhat unfounded fabrication made up in your head, and now you've decided to 'point the finger' at me because, well, I honestly don't know why.
See ya.
otisbrown@embarqmail.com - 11 Apr 2008 02:39 GMT Dear Zetsu,
Wise and correct analysis.
The people who are optometrists use the title "Doctor", as in OD. There is one Dr. Robins who is an ophthalmologist.
This is a public forum, dedicated to the PUBLIC.
As such, each person reading these discussions must take that into considerations.
It think Bev publishes a "disclaimer" -- for anyone who has ANY doubts on that subject.
So keep on posting what you wish.
It is a matter of "Freedom of Speech", so beloved by the Founding Fathers, and written bold into the First Admedment.
Otis
> Neil, another thing I forgot to ask you in my earlier post (I know I > said I'd stop arguing, but this is a significant point) is: Where [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > See ya. Nicolaas Hawkins - 10 Apr 2008 08:13 GMT > Now you like him again, huh? > > Schizophrenia among your DSM-IV Dx's, Otis? That's QUITE an > impressive list you represent! Couldn't re-present a cheque.
 Signature - Nic.
Jason Sperry - 10 Apr 2008 08:44 GMT LOL Neil Brooks you are a crazy man.
You do not know me.
BTW, I actually have a life, just to let you know.
Go away and read Bates or something.
Gosh.
Zetsu - 10 Apr 2008 08:59 GMT Don W - 10 Apr 2008 20:45 GMT I think if our Forefathers had got a load (and I do mean load) of this, they would have reconsidered the concept of free speech.
Don W.
Zetsu - 10 Apr 2008 20:49 GMT If you don't like free speech then why are you on this newsgroup? Go and start your own moderated forum (that way, you can filter the posts you don't 'like'!) and stop whining. Otherwise, be silent.
Don W - 10 Apr 2008 23:07 GMT "Be silent" is good advice, especially from a 13 year old who has silenced this board.
Enjoy your posting (spell check?).
Ms.Brainy - 08 Apr 2008 22:36 GMT On Apr 8, 12:47 pm, mead...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi. I'm 60 and am in the middle of a vitreous detachment. It started > with a symmetrical, snowflake-like pattern in the middle of my vision. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > is, or has anyone experienced something like this? I've read about > blood getting into the eye, but it sounds like there is more movement. The "veil" you describe is a classic description of a retinal detachment. Call your retina specialist and get an appointment immediately -- it's an emergency. Otherwise go to the nearest ER with no delay -- time counts, and your future vision depends on immediate surgical treatment. Good luck!
meade25@gmail.com - 09 Apr 2008 15:24 GMT > On Apr 8, 12:47 pm, mead...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > - Show quoted text - First of all, thank you so, so much for these responses, to Ms Brainy and John. I really appreciate it. I'm trying to post this, but my eyes are sstill dialated from my visit to the retinal experts last night. Hopefully, my typing will be OK. I wanted to respond last night, but I just couldn't see after my treatment.
I did call the clinic and they told me to come right in. The doctor determined that I didn't actually have a retinal detachment, but he recommended that I have the peripery of my retina lasered to strengthen it, because it looked weak (search on "lattice degeneration", which I will do later, when I can see better). The weakness left it prone to small tears which could lead to retinal detachment in the future. Even with the treatment, the eye must be closely watched. I underwent that tlaser treatment last night, all a very excruciatingly painful experience of eye-gouging and blinding light, leaving you with the feeling that your eye can never recover from the treatment. This morning, I;'m still left wondering if I can see, but the dialation is still so strong that everything is bleary and too bright. But I wanted to get off this note of thanks. I was told to take it easy for a few weeks while the retina forms scar tissue from the laser burns: no running, falling, jarring, but walking is OK.
One last side note of interested about the laser treatment. As the laser is applied, occasionally, nerve endings are hit. This causes a strange sensation rising up into the eyebrows and forehead, something like a headache or dull, burning throb. But, compared with the other eye trauma of gouging and bright lights, these were nothing. Only after I was released from the torture did those little headaches become more noticable. Some ibuprofen made them go away.
So far, that's the story. Thanks again for your kind help.
meade25@gmail.com - 09 Apr 2008 15:33 GMT On Apr 9, 7:24 am, mead...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Apr 8, 12:47 pm, mead...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > > - Show quoted text - After posting, I realized that I omitted a couple of things. Firstly, the experience at lunch 2 days ago, was the actual release of the vitreous from the retina. As it released, I saw light flashes, but really had no other sensations. But within a few hours I noticed the large, new floaters. These will probably float more out of the way in the next few days and weeks. The "veil" that I described is attributed to blood and pigment that was released during the release process, being now suspended in the vitreous. That also should gradually disappear.
otisbrown@embarqmail.com - 10 Apr 2008 00:40 GMT Dear Mead,
Since I had exactly the same situation as you did -- I was about to post the same recommendation.
A burst of "floaters" or "curved" lines that are straight should always send you to an ophthalmologist.
Some people do not understand the second-opinion, and seem to attack all who do not understand it -- as you will find out.
We all wish you safe recovery.
Otis
On Apr 9, 10:33 am, mead...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 9, 7:24 am, mead...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > > - Show quoted text -
|
|
|