At work I noticed that when I read my monitor (with a flourescent
overhead) or the printed page that the text seems to *move* and its
hard to focus on it but at home (with a similar monitor but lit by
incandescent light) I do not have this problem. However, at work if
it is a bright sunny day and I stand by the window I can read text just
fine. I recently bought a incandescent lamp and put it in my cube and
if I read by that it is much clearer. I am also very sensitive
monitors with low refresh rates. If the monitor is at 60Hz its
unbearable. But when I started in the computer industry I could easily
use 60Hz monitors.
A couple people at my small company have various stages of this issue,
but no one has mentioned the printed page issue.
Is there an article or name of this condition that I can use to find
out more information? Would different flourescent bulbs help? Any
suggestions?
use electronic ballast for the fluorescent tubes and use full spectrum
ones.
<xyzz…@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1103156494.978894.149780@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> At work I noticed that when I read my monitor (with a flourescent
> overhead) or the printed page that the text seems to *move* and its
> hard to focus on it but at home (with a similar monitor but lit by
> incandescent light) I do not have this problem. However, at work if
> it is a bright sunny day and I stand by the window I can read text just
> fine. I recently bought a incandescent lamp and put it in my cube and
> if I read by that it is much clearer. I am also very sensitive
> monitors with low refresh rates. If the monitor is at 60Hz its
> unbearable. But when I started in the computer industry I could easily
> use 60Hz monitors.
> A couple people at my small company have various stages of this issue,
> but no one has mentioned the printed page issue.
> Is there an article or name of this condition that I can use to find
> out more information? Would different flourescent bulbs help? Any
> suggestions?
Flourescent bulbs has a flicker and some people have a high flicker
sensitivity. As the ballast in the light fixture ages, it starts to
malfuntion and flicker may be more apparent. Incandescent bulbs do not
flicker. The best solution is the one you have discovered: use an
incandescent bulb as supplemental light. If other people notice it too,
then ask your employer to replace the ballasts in the light fixtures.
Dr Judy
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 13:33:24 -0500, "Dr Judy"
<mpace99nos…@rogers.com> wrote:
>Flourescent bulbs has a flicker and some people have a high flicker
>sensitivity. As the ballast in the light fixture ages, it starts to
>malfuntion and flicker may be more apparent. Incandescent bulbs do not
>flicker.
Most people can’t see the flicker of incandescent lamps, at least in
the US and other 60 Hz countries. In 50 Hz countries more people will
admit to seeing it. Typical incandescent output drops to around 85% of
the average output at the nulls of the power waveform at 60 Hz.
Personally, I can readily see or "feel" the difference in flicker
between an incandescent lamp run on direct current with a variation of
0.1 % and another run on 0.01 % variation power. Luckily I live
"off-grid" and my entire house is wired with pure DC from huge storage
batteries.
> The best solution is the one you have discovered: use an
>incandescent bulb as supplemental light.
That may or may not help. If the fluorescents cannot be blocked from
peripheral vision, they may still affect one’s perception, even if the
focus of attention is mostly lit by incandescent light or even
daylight. Imagine trying to work with a strobe light in your
peripheral vision…
> If other people notice it too,
>then ask your employer to replace the ballasts in the light fixtures.
Hopefully with high-frequency electronic ballasts that make the
flicker almost imperceptible, and actually less apparent than the
flicker of incandescent light. And save money both on power consumed
and lamp and ballast life.
Now if they could just fix the lousy color rendition of even the best
"full spectrum" fluorescents…
Loren
Dear Prevention minded ODs and friends,
When the ODs on this site question my engineering credibility — I am
going to respond.
Some ODs in fact support the concept of prevention with the plus — and
we shoud understand the scientific support of the ODs who will offer
you a "fighting chance" at prevention.
After all — you have nothing to lose, and can easily turn down an
optometrist who offers to help you in this manner. But once you turn
"prevention" down — you don’t get a "second chance" at it.
Here are some thoughtufl remarks by
"Herb" to counterbalance the majority opinion
experessed by the ODs on this news-group.
Best,
Otis
______________
From: Herb B. OD
Subject: Using Plus to Prevent Myopia
Dear Dr. X
Otis asked me to write you an email of support for using plus
lenses to head off myopia in the early stages.
I do not consider myself an authority on this matter, simply
an optometrist who is interested in prevention and alternative
therapies for visual problems, including myopia.
A little background: I am a career changer who was a
geologist. My daughter’s visual and spatial problems lead us to
send her to a behavioral optometrist here in Denver, who succeeded
in motivating my daughter to do vision therapy for her
accommodative, binocular, and visual-perception problems. I got
interested and found I had similar problems. I, too, went through
vision therapy as an adult and was able to regain my binocular
vision, i.e. I had no 3D, and also perceptual problems.
I then worked as a vision therapist for this other doctor (in
the DC area) and finally decided to go to optometry school to be
able to really get into this area. However, I think its important
to note that no one ever told me that I or my daughter could even
think about reducing or preventing myopia, which we both have at
about -3 D to -4 D.
It wasn’t until later that I learned that my nephew had
actually succeeded in throwing away his myopia glasses after
working very hard with Dr. Amiel Franke in DC.
So then later, after optometry school, I was interning with
my daughter’s OD here in Denver and that is where I learned of
using biofeedback to reduce beginning myopia in a 17 year old who
wanted to be 20/20 for the Air Force. That was successful in
reducing her from 20/40 to 20/20 in just a few weeks. I think she
probably did other exercises, too.
As far as plus therapy, I routinely RX low plus on beginning
myopes, and higher plus over their distance Rx if they insist on
wearing minus. I have not come to the point of being in a
situation where I do not Rx minus lenses at all, but I foresee
that coming in the future when I am more independent.
A short story. I had just arrived at optometry school in
Forest Grove, Oregon, in 1994. I went to the insurance agent to
get car insurance. There, the lady told me she had identical twin
daughters, then about 20 years old, who when young, went to
Pacific Optometry School across the street literally, and were
told to both wear minus lenses for distance vision. One girl was
compliant and wore her glasses always. The other, was a rebel!
She would not wear her glasses. Now, 15 years later, one wears a
substantial minus Rx and the other wears no glasses at all! I
have seen the identical story with my own two children, but they
are not twins. The rebellious one wears no glasses and the other
is very near-sighted.
So, as I said to Otis, there is much evidence that plus works
to prevent myopia in many cases, especially in convergence excess,
high AC/A, and Acc. Ins. At the VERY WORST, it does NO harm! So
I am appalled that your board would hassle you.
I am wishing you the best. I could contact my mentor if you
would like to get some references on plus, if you don’t already
have them.
Sincerely,
Herb B., MS, OD
This posting is an automatic reply to any sci.med.vision newsgroup thread
that is receiving comments from a person named "Otis", "Otis Brown",
"otisbr…@pa.net" or "Otis, Engineer".
Otis is not an expert in any field of vision. His medical and eyecare
training is nil. He is a proponent of a myopia (i.e. nearsightedness)
prevention technique that is unproven at best, and has in some aspects even
been disproven by controlled scientific studies. He has posted and reposted
his ideas approximately 1000 times over the last two years despite being
repeatedly debunked by numerous doctor practitioners and vision scientists.
No one means to suppress the opinions of others. This message is only meant
to forewarn anyone who might misconstrue Otis as a trained eyecare expert.
DO NOT REPLY TO HIS POSTINGS. Do not feed the troll!
Please see the weekly posting "welcome to sci.med.vision" which usually
appears on Mondays for information on how to filter out his posts so that
you may be able to participate in
worthwhile discussions in this forum. Thank you for your cooperation and
understanding.
<otisbr…@pa.net> wrote in message
news:1103256912.014369.47610@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Dear Prevention minded ODs and friends,
<otisbr…@pa.net> wrote
> I am wishing you the best. I could contact my mentor if you
> would like to get some references on plus, if you don’t already
> have them.
Yes, Herb, I’d be very interested in any published references you may have.
-Mike Tyner, OD
Dear Prevention minded friends,
As usual, Mike Tyner and "RM" (who ever he is)
warn you aginst optometrists who wish
to help you with prevention — but
telling you what is experimentally
true about the dynamic behavior
of the eye.
You can pretty well guss at their motives.
Prevention with the plus is difficult — but
possible.
Here is Herb, discussing "standard practice"
and why it never changes.
But this is a "free" site, and you should put
understand the concept of the "second-opinion"
and how it might affect your visual future.
I am certain that Mike and "RM" will declare
that Dr. Herb B. does not exist
either.
Think for yourself!
Best,
Otis
Engineer
__________________________
From: A prevention minded optometrist
Dear Otis;
Subject: Using Plus to Prevent Myopia
Thank you for sending the email along to Dr. Leung,
I do remember some research from my op school days that said
the average child, say about age 5, is hyperopic, but their
accommodation is so strong in a "normal" child, that they can see
perfectly near and far. If such a child does have accommodative
insufficiency, then they could have acuity problems and would need
plus for near certainly and sometimes for far.
Now, the child who is "plano" at age 5 does indeed have a
higher likelihood of becoming myopic (statistically) because he or
she does not have the "cushion" of plus power to take up the slack
so to speak when their near-point visual demands increase with
schooling later on. This is the point where I have all along
prescribed plus, but often low plus, for near. I admit I am not
an authority on the uses of higher plus that you are talking
about, but I am certainly open to it if the person is motivated.
This is the case with all therapies that the person has to do
themselves as opposed to something the doctor does to them
passively, like minus lenses.
I consciously picked an optometry school to attend that
"believed" in behavioral optometry, which gives a more open
attitude to prevention and teaches many near-point tests that the
average OD will not usually do. Unfortunately, as I was
attending, a new dean, who was an OD and MD, came in with some of
his minions, and they introduced much more of the medical model.
This in optometry seems to dismiss all these preventive strategies
in favor of speed, efficiency, and money, relegating refractions
to technicians or machines, so the OD can be a "real" doctor, and
just breeze in for a few minutes to analyze the results of the
technicians! This way they can see many more patients and make
much more money and gain prestige from the uninformed masses.
This is a very unfortunate trend. In the case of optometry,
I really believe that many of the "old-timers" who were
behaviorally-oriented, were more progressive than the newer crop
of graduates, who seem to be frustrated ophthalmologists.
Sincerely,
Herb
Herb B., MS, OD
<otisbr…@pa.net> wrote
> I am certain that Mike and "RM" will declare
> that Dr. Herb B. does not exist
> either.
I only asked for published references. Are you saying they don’t exist?
-MT
Dear Mike,
I have repeatedly provided direct experimental proof
that the natural eye is dynamic.
This is so simple that I do not see how you "miss" the
point — but you do — totally.
This is basic "input" versus "ouput" testing.
But you sweep all the experimental (SCIENTIFIC) data off
the table are TOTALLY BIASED, and they you pronounce
that "there is no data".
I guess that some will believe you — but others are
going to "wake up".
Even your fellow ODs (Herb) have a hard time
taking your total rejection of this direct experimental
data.
Try reading the work of Franis Young and other gifted
experimeters. But all you will do is to generate
excuses to ignore all of it.
But I will be pleased to present further arguments
describing your "science" my friend.
Best,
Otis
"Dr. Herb" also offered to provide us with some references regarding
prevention with plus. Dr. Tyner asked for them. I too would be
interested in them. Dr. Herb can feel free to post them on this forum,
or email them privately if he preferes to do that.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Even your fellow ODs (Herb) have a hard time
> taking your total rejection of this direct experimental
> data.
> Try reading the work of Franis Young and other gifted
> experimeters. But all you will do is to generate
> excuses to ignore all of it.
> But I will be pleased to present further arguments
> describing your "science" my friend.
> Best,
> Otis
<otisbr…@pa.net> wrote in message >
> I have repeatedly provided direct experimental proof
> that the natural eye is dynamic.
I thought Dr. Herb might have some evidence that plus lenses work on human
myopia. Guess not.
-MT
Dear Nipidoc,
I will forward your request to him for his response.
Please remember — we are talking ONLY about prevention
before a minus lens is used. As such the use of the
plus MUST involve the intellectual understanding
of the person who is using it.
That is the only issue.
Best,
Otis
> I have repeatedly provided direct experimental proof
> that the natural eye is dynamic.
You have offered no direct experimental proof that the natural eye is
dynamic. You just keep proclaiming it over and over again as if that is
enough.
It is insufficient to quote an animal study where the animals are
drastically overminused.
It is insufficient to keep dredging up statements from old optometrists
whose theories have since been disproven.
It is insufficient to point out case reports of a couple of "pilot
engineers" who have cleared their vision (if they even really exist) and
then draw conclusions to the "entire population of adolescent eyes" (your
words!).
You have no proof, just a loud repetitive mouth. And just what are your
qualifications that allow you to give anyone advise about their vision
problems? Do you have scientific or clinical training in visual sciences?
Why won’t you ever answer?
<otisbr…@pa.net> wrote
> Please remember — we are talking ONLY about prevention
> before a minus lens is used. As such the use of the
> plus MUST involve the intellectual understanding
> of the person who is using it.
Ah… so that’s why -250 myopes don’t get better when they remove their
glasses – they lack the intellectual understanding. Now I get it.
-MT
Fair enough. I look forward to Dr. Herbs references supporting the
claim that the use of a plus lenses prevents the development of myopia
before minus lenses are used.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
otisbr…@pa.net wrote:
> Dear Nipidoc,
> I will forward your request to him for his response.
> Please remember — we are talking ONLY about prevention
> before a minus lens is used. As such the use of the
> plus MUST involve the intellectual understanding
> of the person who is using it.
> That is the only issue.
> Best,
> Otis
Dear Mike,
Since Jan declares that the concept of prevention
"must be destroyed" I think there is a valid
case that the person should intellectually
evaluate that kind of opinion.
That is what I meant by "intellectual".
You have obviously missed that point my friend.
Best,
Otis
"otisbr…@pa.net" <otisbr…@pa.net> wrote in
news:1103431490.942946.326350@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Dear Mike,
> Since Jan declares that the concept of prevention
> "must be destroyed" I think there is a valid
> case that the person should intellectually
> evaluate that kind of opinion.
> That is what I meant by "intellectual".
> You have obviously missed that point my friend.
> Best,
> Otis
Since Otis states that plus lenses will prevent myopia, THAT statement must
be proven. I think there is a valid case that the person should
intellectually evaluate that kind of opinion.
DrG
<otisbr…@pa.net> wrote
> That is what I meant by "intellectual".
> You have obviously missed that point my friend.
Obviously my education is inadequate. We need more engineers teaching
physics, medicine, and statistics.
-MT
<otisbr…@pa.net> wrote in message
news:1103342839.676725.300350@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com…
> Dear Mike,
> I have repeatedly provided direct experimental proof
> that the natural eye is dynamic.
Sorry Otis, I did not see your direct experimental proof, I must have missed
it. Would you kindly repost it.
I can’t understand why you don’t concider the hyperopic eye as "Natural".
Please explain.
> This is so simple that I do not see how you "miss" the
> point — but you do — totally.
> This is basic "input" versus "ouput" testing.
Not so basic if it requires the Px to be inteligent and understand that the
natural eye is dynamic.
> But I will be pleased to present further arguments
> describing your "science" my friend.
We had enough of arguments based on your theories, show us proof. We can
only act on evidence based medicine. Not on what Otis Brown thinks will
happen if a propper study is conducted.
> Best,
> Otis
Roland J. Izaac
<otisbr…@pa.net> schreef in bericht
news:1103431490.942946.326350@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com…
> Dear Mike,
> Since Jan declares that the concept of prevention
> "must be destroyed" I think there is a valid
> case that the person should intellectually
> evaluate that kind of opinion.
> That is what I meant by "intellectual".
> You have obviously missed that point my friend.
> Best,
> Otis
And again Otis quote incorrect.
There is no need to be the ”intellectual type” to recognize what I mean.
Only Otis is missing what it stands for.
–
Free to Marcus Porcius Cato: ”Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"
I declare that Otis idea about preventing myopia in humans must be
destroyed.
Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
"Mike Tyner" <mty…@mindspring.com> wrote in news:nh8xd.3855$yK.259
@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:
> <otisbr…@pa.net> wrote
>> That is what I meant by "intellectual".
>> You have obviously missed that point my friend.
> Obviously my education is inadequate. We need more engineers teaching
> physics, medicine, and statistics.
> -MT
This is the part of this whole exchange that I hate. There is absolutely
nothing wrong with engineers teaching physics, medicine, and statistics.
In fact, I teach a little of all three. Don’t tar us all with the same
brush.
Scott
Otis> I have repeatedly provided direct experimental proof
that the natural eye is dynamic.
Rol > Sorry Otis, I did not see your direct experimental proof, I must
have missed
it. Would you kindly repost it.
Otis> Dear Roland — if you will accept the separation of science
(i.e.,
DIRECT MEASUREMENTS of the refractive state of the natural eye
from MEDICINE, i.e., dealing with a mass of people who only
want an immediate "fix" with the minus lens — then we
can proceed. It will be up to the person engineer-pilot, to
decide what course of action he might wish to take
to implement prevention.
Otis> I will be pleased to repost the experimental
data proving that the natural eye is "dynamic"
in a few days.
I can’t understand why you don’t concider the hyperopic eye as
"Natural".
Please explain.
Otis> To avoid "fighting" with you, I use the term "refractive status"
where the eye can have a refractive status running between
-1 diopter to +2.0 diopters and remain completely natural.
Otis> The word "hyperopic" is translated "farsighted", which
implies "defect" to the layman. To avoid any minstaken
conotation of this nature, just use the neutral term,
refractive status.
Otis> This is so simple that I do not see how you "miss" the
point — but you do — totally.
Otis> This is basic "input" versus "ouput" testing.
Not so basic if it requires the Px (patient) to be inteligent and
understand that the
natural eye is dynamic.
Otis> Which does suggest that the engineer take time to
go through a tutorial on measurement systems, and
an analysis of the behavior of the natural eye — and
why the engineer can expect that the eye will
be proven to be dynamic. Again, on an "input"
versus "output" were you apply a "delta" to
the visual environment and measure the
expected e ^ (-t/TAU) time-constant responsed.
Otis> Obviously you expect everything to be reduced
to 15 minutes with a person — and that is absolutly
not possible.
Otis> You could define this at the difference between
engineering-science (learning the truith about the
natural eye’s behavior) versus servicing a
a large number of people who walk in
off the stree — and expect ONLY a minus-lens
quick-fix.
> But I will be pleased to present further arguments
> describing your "science" my friend.
Rol We had enough of arguments based on your theories, show us proof.
Otis> Concerning the dynamic nature of the natural eye — but of
course.
We can
only act on evidence based medicine.
Otis> I am not asking you to "act". I am asking you to think.
The evidence I present is based on science, and not on medicine.
There is a profound difference in attitude and understanding
between these two professions.
Not on what Otis Brown thinks will
happen if a propper study is conducted.
Otis> I would be please to work towards prevention
with other engineers who will evaluate your opinion,
the experimental data, and make THEIR DECISION
based on these aspects of this difficult situitation.
Otis> I look forward to the day when we can
take that FIRST STEP my friend — along scientific,
not medical lines.
Best,
Otis
I apologize. Otis tarnishes your profession. He takes his training in
engineering and tries to extend it into a field that he knows nothing about.
—-
"Scott Seidman" <namdiestt…@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95C480567174Escottseidmanmindspri@130.133.1.4…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "Mike Tyner" <mty…@mindspring.com> wrote in news:nh8xd.3855$yK.259
> @newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:
>> <otisbr…@pa.net> wrote
>>> That is what I meant by "intellectual".
>>> You have obviously missed that point my friend.
>> Obviously my education is inadequate. We need more engineers teaching
>> physics, medicine, and statistics.
>> -MT
> This is the part of this whole exchange that I hate. There is absolutely
> nothing wrong with engineers teaching physics, medicine, and statistics.
> In fact, I teach a little of all three. Don’t tar us all with the same
> brush.
> Scott
"Scott Seidman" <namdiestt…@mindspring.com> wrote
> This is the part of this whole exchange that I hate. There is
> absolutely nothing wrong with engineers teaching physics,
> medicine, and statistics. In fact, I teach a little of all three.
> Don’t tar us all with the same brush.
I apologize, too.
The notable difference is that you likely have some formal training in those
areas.
-MT
<otisbr…@pa.net> wrote in message
news:1103487809.145990.265550@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Otis> I have repeatedly provided direct experimental proof
> that the natural eye is dynamic.
> Rol > Sorry Otis, I did not see your direct experimental proof, I must
> have missed
> it. Would you kindly repost it.
> Otis> Dear Roland — if you will accept the separation of science
> (i.e.,
> DIRECT MEASUREMENTS of the refractive state of the natural eye
> from MEDICINE, i.e., dealing with a mass of people who only
> want an immediate "fix" with the minus lens — then we
> can proceed. It will be up to the person engineer-pilot, to
> decide what course of action he might wish to take
> to implement prevention.
> Otis> I will be pleased to repost the experimental
> data proving that the natural eye is "dynamic"
> in a few days.
> I can’t understand why you don’t concider the hyperopic eye as
> "Natural".
> Please explain.
> Otis> To avoid "fighting" with you, I use the term "refractive status"
> where the eye can have a refractive status running between
> -1 diopter to +2.0 diopters and remain completely natural.
So if it falls out of this range, it cannot be concidered completely
natural.
Does it follow then that an eye with a "refractive status" 0f -1.25 is not
completely natural and therefore is not concidered dynamic and will not
follow the visual environment?
Please answere
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Otis> The word "hyperopic" is translated "farsighted", which
> implies "defect" to the layman. To avoid any minstaken
> conotation of this nature, just use the neutral term,
> refractive status.
> Otis> This is so simple that I do not see how you "miss" the
> point — but you do — totally.
> Otis> This is basic "input" versus "ouput" testing.
> Not so basic if it requires the Px (patient) to be inteligent and
> understand that the
> natural eye is dynamic.
> Otis> Which does suggest that the engineer take time to
> go through a tutorial on measurement systems, and
> an analysis of the behavior of the natural eye — and
> why the engineer can expect that the eye will
> be proven to be dynamic. Again, on an "input"
> versus "output" were you apply a "delta" to
> the visual environment and measure the
> expected e ^ (-t/TAU) time-constant responsed.
"….and the eye will be proven to be dynamic" That sounds like future tense
to me Otis. You are sugesting treatment with a plus lens be introduced
because you believe it will be proven correct some time in the future. That
my friend is quackery. You want to make quacks out of us?
> Otis> Obviously you expect everything to be reduced
> to 15 minutes with a person — and that is absolutly
> not possible.
Actually if we suspect accomodative myopia, a cyclo refraction can show it
in a short time. Why wait months and years?
> Otis> You could define this at the difference between
> engineering-science (learning the truith about the
> natural eye’s behavior) versus servicing a
> a large number of people who walk in
> off the stree — and expect ONLY a minus-lens
> quick-fix.
Can’t make sence of the above
> > But I will be pleased to present further arguments
> > describing your "science" my friend.
No, no, no. please present further arguments defending your science instead.
> Rol We had enough of arguments based on your theories, show us proof.
> Otis> Concerning the dynamic nature of the natural eye — but of
> course.
> We can
> only act on evidence based medicine.
> Otis> I am not asking you to "act". I am asking you to think.
> The evidence I present is based on science, and not on medicine.
> There is a profound difference in attitude and understanding
> between these two professions.
Offering the "Second opinion" to patients is acting without proof.
> Not on what Otis Brown thinks will
> happen if a propper study is conducted.
> Otis> I would be please to work towards prevention
> with other engineers who will evaluate your opinion,
> the experimental data, and make THEIR DECISION
> based on these aspects of this difficult situitation.
Unfortunately Otis, the decision to incorporate plus therapy in our
practicees does not lie with engineers.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Otis> I look forward to the day when we can
> take that FIRST STEP my friend — along scientific,
> not medical lines.
> Best,
> Otis
>and get her an appointment with a "functional optometrist"
>or "neuro-optometrist" instead of going back to a neuro ophthalmologist.
>Also, I came across some web sites that sell software for vision therapy. Are
>these programs any good?
>Any comments appreciated.
>Thanks, David
Stick with MDs—but change if you are not satisfied.
(This isn’t really an eye problem but a neurological problem)
rusht…@aol.com (Rushtown) wrote in
news:20041215013758.08274.00002079@mb-m05.aol.com:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>>and get her an appointment with a "functional optometrist"
>>or "neuro-optometrist" instead of going back to a neuro
>>ophthalmologist.
>>Also, I came across some web sites that sell software for vision
>>therapy. Are these programs any good?
>>Any comments appreciated.
>>Thanks, David
> Stick with MDs—but change if you are not satisfied.
> (This isn’t really an eye problem but a neurological problem)
Aw, gee thanks for the vote of confidence in optometry. Now just what is
it that the neuro-ophthalmologist is going to be able to offer?
People go through rehab with phycial therapists all the time following
"neurological" injuries. The neurologist doesn’t conduct the PT. Same
relationship holds in this situation.
DrG
>>and get her an appointment with a "functional optometrist"
>>or "neuro-optometrist" instead of going back to a neuro ophthalmologist.
>>Also, I came across some web sites that sell software for vision therapy.
>Are
>>these programs any good?
>>Any comments appreciated.
>>Thanks, David
>Stick with MDs—but change if you are not satisfied.
>(This isn’t really an eye problem but a neurological problem)
Thanks for your suggestion. She has seen two neuro ophthalmologists. One atter
the nerve surgery on her left eye and another after the last surgery to install
the skull plate. That is why I am considering other options.
Thanks, David
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>rusht…@aol.com (Rushtown) wrote in
>news:20041215013758.08274.00002079@mb-m05.aol.com:
>>>and get her an appointment with a "functional optometrist"
>>>or "neuro-optometrist" instead of going back to a neuro
>>>ophthalmologist.
>>>Also, I came across some web sites that sell software for vision
>>>therapy. Are these programs any good?
>>>Any comments appreciated.
>>>Thanks, David
>> Stick with MDs—but change if you are not satisfied.
>> (This isn’t really an eye problem but a neurological problem)
>Aw, gee thanks for the vote of confidence in optometry. Now just what is
>it that the neuro-ophthalmologist is going to be able to offer?
>People go through rehab with phycial therapists all the time following
>"neurological" injuries. The neurologist doesn’t conduct the PT. Same
>relationship holds in this situation.
>DrG
Below is a paragraph from one of the web pages I found while looking around the
net. I found some of the statements very familiar except in our case there is
no litigation involved and my wife’s vision is blurry not double vision
(unless the double vision is so minor that it just makes her vision seem
blurry).
The following paragraph is from the web site:
http://www.headinjurylaw.com/vision2.htm
The software of the visual system consists of the neural wiring of the optic
nerve, the optic
chiasm, the optic tracts and their offshoots, the lateral geniculate nucleus
(LGN) of the
thalamus, the optic radiations from the LGN and the visual cortex located at
the back of
the brain in the occipital lobe. The wiring is made up of thin, delicate axons
and the visual
processing units in the LGN and visual cortex consist of tiny living cells with
fragile
membranes. The axons are vulnerable to stretch/strain damage and the cells are
vulnerable to shaking or perturbation which can damage or kill them. Closed
head trauma
causing "mild tbi" (with minimal or no loss of consciousness) frequently
traumatizes the
software of the visual system with disruption of binocular vision such as
blurry or double
vision. However, closed head brain trauma which damages the vision software
causes no
detectable mechanical damage to eye structures and no cranial nerve damage with
easily
detectible strabismus or hyperopia. The patient’s eyes look fine. He can still
read an eye
chart. His brain shows no bleeding on CT or swelling/compression on MRI. In
such cases,
and there are many thousands every year, the typical ophthalmologist chalks up
the
patient’s complaints of double vision to "hysteria" or "malingering,"
especially when they
learn a claim has been filed. This not only wounds the feelings of the patients
(who know
they are telling the truth, their vision really is double) but deprives them of
necessary
treatment and may ruin their personal injury lawsuit or workers compensation
claim
without good reason.
Thanks, David
>Take a look at this for starters.
>http://www.iblindness.org/books/bates/
Thanks, I will check it out.
David
but don’t behave as the people at that site, they are true ignorants,
as all the other professionals in this field.
this is a matter of spiritual quest.
http://thecentralfixation.com
Take a look at this for starters.
http://www.iblindness.org/books/bates/
"Dyhibb" <dyh…@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041214224955.11961.00001619@mb-m16.aol.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> On September 1, 2002, my wife had an accident which resulted in a severe
> brain
> injury to the right side of the head. One of the results of the injury was
> the
> left eye turned towards her nose and would not move toward the center. She
> had
> two surgeries last year and the eye will now move to just left of center
> and
> all the way to the right.
> She has been complaining of getting very dizzy mostly when she is
> standing or
> walking but sometimes when she is sitting.
> She was checked out by a neuro-opthomologist and he said the current
> prescription for her glasses was still fine and said that she may still be
> recovering from the surgery she had in October to put in a skull plate.
> Then she was checked out by an audiology specialist and he asked her to
> describe her dizziness and decided it was more of a blurred vision
> problem.
> We are waiting for an appointment for her to get some "vestibular testing"
> but
> after doing some research on the internet, I am wondering if I should skip
> the
> vestibular testing and get her an appointment with a "functional
> optometrist"
> or "neuro-optometrist" instead of going back to a neuro ophthalmologist.
Dizziness is almost always due to a vestibular problem, get that done first.
Vision training by optometrists is directed primarily at improving binocular
vision. Your wife does not have binocular vision due to major damage to the
6th cranial nerve which controls the lateral rectus of her left eye; the
muscle is not working and will not be made to work with vision training.
Sometimes the nerve recovers after injury, recovery may take months to
years. The neuro ophthalmologist who knows the details of your wife’s
injury and surgeries can tell you whether any recovery is expected.
> Also, I came across some web sites that sell software for vision therapy.
> Are
> these programs any good?
Usually these programs are used in conjunction with a vision training person
(either optometrist or occupational therapist) who knows the details of your
wife’s injury and could tell you whether a program would work and recommend
a specific one. Again, most are directed at improving binocular fusion
which your wife will likely not achieve due to the nerve damage.
Dr Judy
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Any comments appreciated.
> Thanks, David
HI Dr. Judy,
Thanks for your suggestions.
David
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>"Dyhibb" <dyh…@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20041214224955.11961.00001619@mb-m16.aol.com…
>> On September 1, 2002, my wife had an accident which resulted in a severe
>> brain
>> injury to the right side of the head. One of the results of the injury was
>> the
>> left eye turned towards her nose and would not move toward the center. She
>> had
>> two surgeries last year and the eye will now move to just left of center
>> and
>> all the way to the right.
>> She has been complaining of getting very dizzy mostly when she is
>> standing or
>> walking but sometimes when she is sitting.
>> She was checked out by a neuro-opthomologist and he said the current
>> prescription for her glasses was still fine and said that she may still be
>> recovering from the surgery she had in October to put in a skull plate.
>> Then she was checked out by an audiology specialist and he asked her to
>> describe her dizziness and decided it was more of a blurred vision
>> problem.
>> We are waiting for an appointment for her to get some "vestibular testing"
>> but
>> after doing some research on the internet, I am wondering if I should skip
>> the
>> vestibular testing and get her an appointment with a "functional
>> optometrist"
>> or "neuro-optometrist" instead of going back to a neuro ophthalmologist.
>Dizziness is almost always due to a vestibular problem, get that done first.
>Vision training by optometrists is directed primarily at improving binocular
>vision. Your wife does not have binocular vision due to major damage to the
>6th cranial nerve which controls the lateral rectus of her left eye; the
>muscle is not working and will not be made to work with vision training.
>Sometimes the nerve recovers after injury, recovery may take months to
>years. The neuro ophthalmologist who knows the details of your wife’s
>injury and surgeries can tell you whether any recovery is expected.
>> Also, I came across some web sites that sell software for vision therapy.
>> Are
>> these programs any good?
>Usually these programs are used in conjunction with a vision training person
>(either optometrist or occupational therapist) who knows the details of your
>wife’s injury and could tell you whether a program would work and recommend
>a specific one. Again, most are directed at improving binocular fusion
>which your wife will likely not achieve due to the nerve damage.
>Dr Judy
>> Any comments appreciated.
>> Thanks, David
1.
The brain injury described (so vaguely) does suggest DAI (diffuse axonal
injury) did arise. DAI is a very useful marker for damage done via TBI.
There are some scans that can detect DAI, that may be worth persuing but it
will only confirm DAI, not much that can be done about it. Vision problems
are not uncommon post tbi though the exact reasons remain unclear. Dizziness
also occurs post tbi.
2.
Don’t skip the vestibular testing, should at least be checked out.
3.
The internet is replete with miracle cures, enter at your own risk. Caveat
emptor.
4.
Does your wife *always* experience double vision and dizziness. There may be
some merit in trying to determine what makes it worse, the frequency of the
symptoms and any correlations noted. Did the symptom appear before the
corrective surgery?
5.
Given the injury you should consider some dietary changes that may aid
recovery. Nothing spectacular, mostly common sense, but post TBI some
dietary changes can be beneficial for recovery. Don’t fall for the "miracle
herbs fallacy", in fact don’t even try the same without first consulting the
doctor. Some non-traditional forms of therapy can help but you need to be
very careful about this. MUCH wiser to go for an optimal diet that
facilitates brain recovery.
http://www.neuroskills.com/index.shtml?main=/edu/ceumtbi18.shtml
Check out in above link: Vision and TBI under directories pull down menu on
the left.
http://www.brainplace.com/bp/prescriptions/default.asp
This site has a variety of links related to keeping the brain healthy.
"Dyhibb" <dyh…@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041215095916.21876.00001851@mb-m14.aol.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> >rusht…@aol.com (Rushtown) wrote in
> >news:20041215013758.08274.00002079@mb-m05.aol.com:
> >>>and get her an appointment with a "functional optometrist"
> >>>or "neuro-optometrist" instead of going back to a neuro
> >>>ophthalmologist.
> >>>Also, I came across some web sites that sell software for vision
> >>>therapy. Are these programs any good?
> >>>Any comments appreciated.
> >>>Thanks, David
> >> Stick with MDs—but change if you are not satisfied.
> >> (This isn’t really an eye problem but a neurological problem)
> >Aw, gee thanks for the vote of confidence in optometry. Now just what is
> >it that the neuro-ophthalmologist is going to be able to offer?
> >People go through rehab with phycial therapists all the time following
> >"neurological" injuries. The neurologist doesn’t conduct the PT. Same
> >relationship holds in this situation.
> >DrG
> Below is a paragraph from one of the web pages I found while looking
around the
> net. I found some of the statements very familiar except in our case there
is
> no litigation involved and my wife’s vision is blurry not double vision
> (unless the double vision is so minor that it just makes her vision seem
> blurry).
> The following paragraph is from the web site:
> http://www.headinjurylaw.com/vision2.htm
> The software of the visual system consists of the neural wiring of the
optic
> nerve, the optic
> chiasm, the optic tracts and their offshoots, the lateral geniculate
nucleus
> (LGN) of the
> thalamus, the optic radiations from the LGN and the visual cortex located
at
> the back of
> the brain in the occipital lobe. The wiring is made up of thin, delicate
axons
> and the visual
> processing units in the LGN and visual cortex consist of tiny living cells
with
> fragile
> membranes. The axons are vulnerable to stretch/strain damage and the cells
are
> vulnerable to shaking or perturbation which can damage or kill them.
Closed
> head trauma
> causing "mild tbi" (with minimal or no loss of consciousness) frequently
> traumatizes the
> software of the visual system with disruption of binocular vision such as
> blurry or double
> vision. However, closed head brain trauma which damages the vision
software
> causes no
> detectable mechanical damage to eye structures and no cranial nerve damage
with
> easily
> detectible strabismus or hyperopia. The patient’s eyes look fine. He can
still
> read an eye
> chart. His brain shows no bleeding on CT or swelling/compression on MRI.
In
> such cases,
> and there are many thousands every year, the typical ophthalmologist
chalks up
> the
> patient’s complaints of double vision to "hysteria" or "malingering,"
> especially when they
> learn a claim has been filed. This not only wounds the feelings of the
patients
> (who know
> they are telling the truth, their vision really is double) but deprives
them of
> necessary
> treatment and may ruin their personal injury lawsuit or workers
compensation
> claim
> without good reason.
> Thanks, David
Do a simple test: cover one eye with an eyepatch. Is the dizziness and/or
visual blur still the same?
If yes, then it is unrelated to binocular eye cooperation problems, as using
one eye eliminates that.
If the blur is gone, try the other eye – is the blur related to one of the
eyes (probably not.)
If there is still dizziness with one eye covered, try closing BOTH eyes. If
there is still dizziness, then it is definitedly NOT related to the eyes,
and they are out of the picture when they are both closed.
Regarding Dr. Judy’s comment that she does not have binocular vision – may
not be entirely true.
if the muscle surgery (sounds like a transposition of Foster procedure for
total 6th nerve paralysis) was successful, and the eye is aligned in primary
position, even though there is lateral gaze limitation, there is no reason
not to have binocular vision where the eyes are aligned. Of course, if the
visual axes do no line up at all, then, no, there is no binocular vision.
These muscle procedures can restore or increase the field of single
binocular vision, or move it more towards the center, although the extent
will be limited.
David Robins, MD
Board certified Ophthalmologist
Pediatric and strabismus subspecialty
Member of AAPOS
(American Academy of Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus)
On 12/14/04 8:49 PM, in article
20041214224955.11961.00001…@mb-m16.aol.com, "Dyhibb" <dyh…@aol.com>
wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> On September 1, 2002, my wife had an accident which resulted in a severe brain
> injury to the right side of the head. One of the results of the injury was the
> left eye turned towards her nose and would not move toward the center. She had
> two surgeries last year and the eye will now move to just left of center and
> all the way to the right.
> She has been complaining of getting very dizzy mostly when she is standing or
> walking but sometimes when she is sitting.
> She was checked out by a neuro-opthomologist and he said the current
> prescription for her glasses was still fine and said that she may still be
> recovering from the surgery she had in October to put in a skull plate.
> Then she was checked out by an audiology specialist and he asked her to
> describe her dizziness and decided it was more of a blurred vision problem.
> We are waiting for an appointment for her to get some "vestibular testing" but
> after doing some research on the internet, I am wondering if I should skip the
> vestibular testing and get her an appointment with a "functional optometrist"
> or "neuro-optometrist" instead of going back to a neuro ophthalmologist.
> Also, I came across some web sites that sell software for vision therapy. Are
> these programs any good?
> Any comments appreciated.
> Thanks, David
> If there is still dizziness with one eye covered, try closing BOTH
eyes. If
> there is still dizziness, then it is definitedly NOT related to the
eyes,
> and they are out of the picture when they are both closed.
Dizziness is ALWAYS created by the eyes.
Now you see how these doctors are completely ignorant of the truth?
This test is very easy: if he feels dizziness with eyes closed, the
answer is that with eyes closed the strain is most.
The patient should learn some methods for resting his eyes and mind and
find a way to improve his condition.
Little improvements bring forth big improvements.
Eyeglasses must be avoided.
http://TheCentralFixation.com
It seems to me that with so many visits to the neuro-ophthalmologist,
that any problem with visual acuity would have been documented. Go
figure.
DrG