Glaucoma Treatment
Glaucoma Disease » Glaucoma Treatment » Diagnosis and Treatment of Larry Bickford's Glaucoma Page

Diagnosis and Treatment of Larry Bickford's Glaucoma Page

Question:

Raymond A. Chamberlin wrote: > Hmm.  Haven’t heard from the author of this patient since this post. > The patient still seems to be alive, as well as its author (still > behind his kill-file?).  Is he waiting for diagnosis and treatment of > the patient’s glossary also, which was omitted?  Was the author > satisfied with the attention he got?  Will he repair any of the > scotomata discovered in the vision shown on his Web page?  Unlike > those of glaucoma, these could likely be repaired. > Ray

I’m frequently mystified by repies I see in this newsgroup. Some seem to be disconnnected from any prior commentary. Maybe my ISP isn’t collecting all the traffic? Any thoughts?

Response:

REPOST OF ORIGINAL MESSAGE OF THIS THREAD: *************************************************************************** ************  So it seems that one Larry Bickford, OD, who is known for hiding behind a kill-file aimed at all my creative talent  ;-)  in this newsgroup, is now feeling slighted that I have not reviewed his Web page on glaucoma.  [See in s.m.v., Re: Halos, Larry Bickford, 3/9/97] Let’s see, what would you say the going rate is for expert (?) reviewing of a Web page that prints out as 5 pages of condensed text? I don’t believe Medicare covers this sort of diagnosis and treatment, but maybe the AAO will fund such a noble effort toward improvement of the stumbling optometric industry.  ;-) ;-) ;-) It should first be noted that I did include the definition and references to the etiology of glaucoma, contained in Dr. Bickford’s Web page, in my survey of the differences in what professionals present to the public about glaucoma and what they discuss among themselves, published at:         http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1284/introdef.html That survey, however doesn’t get into problems specific to Larry’s page, as opposed to other pages presented to the public. First, one might wonder why, given so incredible a number of pages published on the Web on glaucoma, Larry seemed to think "yet another" one was needed.  Did he find fault with the others (more often related to ophthalmology interests)?  More likely he just felt it would be a good attractor of optometric business, right? Second, note that I haven’t made an in-depth, full-breadth survey of the state of the art of glaucoma diagnosis and treatment, as published in peer-reviewed medical journals, since 1993.  I *have*, though, tried to keep a little aware of some of the cutting edge stuff on glaucoma on the Net and in the medical literature since that date.  I have followed much of what Robert Ritch, MD — a glaucoma clinician, professor and research aficionado and funder — has had to say.  His writings cover the modern ballpark pretty well, but sometimes get into sticky wickets.   Not having any direct professional contact with the field and not ever fondling eyeballs per se, including the one of my own that has much glaucomatous damage, I lack much empirical feel for much of the anatomy and physiology involved, and, of course, I do not have a technical background in the biochemistry or genetics relevant to the subject at hand.  My comments will dwell on self-consistency of the writing, its correlation to other current publications on glaucoma, and how its apparent statements fit with current objective scientific concepts and knowledge structures and with the sort of common sense intelligent and well-educated persons presently rely on.  Some points regarding format may arise.  (My formal training is in electronic engineering, something not centerred on the biosphere exactly, but known as a very analytic and productive discipline.) My methodology will be to violate Larry’s copyright by reposting his writing in entirety here and then interleaving my comments.  (So sue me — me with pockets as deep as Mt. Everest.)  Voil

Related Posts

Write a comment