|
Post by Quatermax on Nov 19, 2004 18:16:15 GMT -5
I just had to set the record straight. I noticed there is a user who calls himself Max and has been posting on this board supporting the use of Vitrase to cure floaters by bringing the vitreous down. Ever since I had a retinal detachment, which I suffered due to an action on my part based on what eye doctors told me - that the vitreous was "bad" for me - I did extensive literature research to find out the truth. The main conclusion I came to is this: The vitreous is vital to us. The floaters are a signal from our eyes that the vitreous has degenerated and needs repairing. As you are aware, the eye profession has never even considered it needs repairing, although they know that vitreous degeneration and floaters are the first step in a chain of unfortunate events that sooner or later will lead to blindness from retinal detachment, especially if myopia is present. This is because the detachment of the vitreous from the retina removes a vital element of support holding the retina in place, and because the water in the resulting vitreous sol leaves the retina wide open to retinal detachment due to seepage of this water under the retina. Therefore, as horrible as the floaters are, it is much more important to stop the progression to blindness, and we can only do this by saving and repairing the vitreous gel, and using it to support the retina - as Nature intended. It`s easy for eye doctors to excuse themselves by saying that the vitreous shrinks and pulls on the retina. Yes, it does, but it did give your retina vital protection for so many years before it began to shrink, and they conveniently forget all about that. They may say this shrinkage is "inevitable". Yes, it is inevitable unless research is initiated to stop it. Don`t you think your sight is too precious to leave in the hands of those who are content to stand by merrily and watch this degeneration continue without lifting a finger to find out how to stop it. The misery of your floaters is literally a cry from your eyes for help, which is still being unheeded by the scientific community. Vitrase may be good for vitreous hemorrhages, but if you have a few floaters, would you accelerate the destruction of your entire vitreous to remove them? Would you run, instead of walk, down a road which may eventually lead to blindness? In any case, even if Vitrase destroyed all the gel in the vitreous, it would leave all the floater collagen untouched and ready to give you a worse nightmare (or should I say a daymare) of fast floater activity. I agree that, before we can build a new vitreous substitute in the eye, we have to "dissolve" the old floater collagen somehow. But Vitrase would dissolve only the hyaluronic acid component, leaving the fibrous collagen to clump together into whopping big floaters. Possibly, the only approach we have to halt this degeneration, and re-absorb the floaters, is to use the Luftig light therapy. In the 1920`s, Dr. William Luftig discovered that the eyes could heal themselves of all eye diseases - including all manner of floaters - if stimulated by the right wavelengths of light. He stated that over the next 30 years, he successfully saved thousands of patients from eye operations and blindness, but, he said, his work was denied publication in peer-reviewed journals. In one of his books, "The Natural Treatment of Eye Diseases", he tells us why (it`s a real "eye-opener"). He designed special crystal glass reflectors to treat and cure eye diseases. Following his death a few years ago, the equipment was acquired by another eye doctor who had no idea what it was, and let his wife use the reflectors as decorative fruit bowls for his living room. I believe those reflectors would be more useful to us as therapeutic devices than as fruit bowls. I believe they may be the key to curing floaters and preventing blindness in one step. However, their description in "The Natural Treatment of Eye Diseases" is very scant. We desperately need to find out what they were, how to reconstruct them and how to use them. If anybody shares my conviction that this project is of vital importance, and has the financial means to sponsor it, please post your email address for contact. Hoping that one day, we will have a floater-free, less uncertain visual future to look forward to.
|
|
|
Post by Larry on Nov 21, 2004 19:10:17 GMT -5
Interesting ideas. Yes I think we all want to have and keep a healthy vitreous. If there is some sort of invention or method that's been overlooked then let’s get some facts about it. I for one have little confidence in anything that advertises itself as a "cure all" or carries the label of being "all natural". Those are gimmicky phrases designed to sell a benign product. However, if your pardon my initial skepticism, I'd like to hear how a "light wave" will react to reabsorb a floater. The only floater I know of that can be absorbed are those that are the blood type that usually come about due to a cause other then synerisis. The floaters we have, in really laymen’s terms, are chunks of dehydrated spaghetti that get turned up in the pool when the filter runs. Hey there’s a concept, a micro vitreous filtration device.
Ok, beaming back down to Earth, we were talking about using light waves. Let’s see (no pun intended); light is made up of photons without mass. I know some will argue there is an undetectable mass present, but that isn’t important. Directing photons, or shining a light, isn’t going to due much by itself other then reflect and cause us to see what the light is hitting. So perhaps this doctor from the 1920's was using non visible light, if we go down the spectrum into the infra-red, or higher into the ultra-violet. What properties of light was he using? Heat? Well that would be our laser of today which I don't think was around 80 years ago. So whatever it was must not have been very powerful and needed a lot of exposure to have an effect.
Whatever this light wave thing is there needs to be something that's supports it as a possibility. To me it sounds like sweeping the leaves off a driveway using a flashlight. I know I can get some results using a magnifying glass (laser treatment), but still I want to find the guy with a leaf blower.
|
|
|
Post by Quatermax on Nov 22, 2004 0:12:20 GMT -5
Hi Larry No, I don`t think light interacts with the floaters. I do think it may interact with the retina and RPE to activate hyalurocytes to maintain the concentration of hyaluronic acid in the vitreous which would prevent the vitreous collapse (PVD). I think those who are forced to work indoors all the time without getting much natural light are at risk for dying hyalurocytes (not to mention dying retinal cells), and therefore PVD. I think those who have too much sun exposure will get cataracts from the UV in the sunlight. But those who get too little will have the vitreous degeneration without the cataracts. I think light may not only activate hyalurocytes to generate hyaluronic acid to keep the cobweb threads apart (so that they don`t aggregate into visible floaters). but it may also have effects on other ocular structures of which we are also presently unaware. The only things that matter are: does it work, and is it safe? The mechanism is completely unimportant (except to university professors, researchers, pharmaceutical companies and doctors who want to increase their prestige and revenue) - save for the fact that an understanding of the mechanism would enable us to make the treatment more effective. It therefore behoves the eye profession to get those reflectors out of hock, and start trying to figure out what may have happened. It is not excusable, acceptable or admissible to dismiss Luftig`s work out of hand when they knew full well that he had been applying it for 30 years, ostensibly with great success. Or maybe, they would prefer NOT to know? In fact, he says, many of his patients were eye doctors who had put pressure on peer-reviewed journals to stop him publishing his work - but who, when it came to the crunch, wanted to avoid surgery themselves.
To find out if a simulated version of the Luftig color reflectors works, you only need to buy some strong multi-LED diode camping flashlights emitting in the primary colors (blue, red and green) and shine them on your floater-filled eyes - with closed eyelids - for a few minutes a day in a darkened room, over a period of several weeks. Please remember always to keep eyes gently closed during this treatment, and maintain a distance of each light from your face which is visually comfortable. I find the red is much stronger than the blue, so I use it at arm`s length, whereas I use the blue up close. According to Luftig, the protocol for retinal detachment, as far as I understand it from his book, was: Day 1: Blue light for a few minutes, darkness for a few minutes, then white light for a few minutes, then again darkness for a few minutes (finish). Day 2: Substitute red light for blue. Don`t forget to rest and finish with white light. Day 3: Repeat Day 1, and continue as long as you like, alternating blue and red. If you are in a hurry (I am), use blue and red in alternation on the same day. After a few weeks of this, "for long-standing cases", Luftig used simultaneous irradiation with red and yellow, followed by white alone, of course. I couldn`t find any commercial yellow LED`s that were strong enough, so I use red and green together. That generates a visible amount of yellow, and I allow the red to predominate to give me what is, effectively, a combination of red and yellow. In my case, after resuming this light treatment, one new large black floater which appeared to be a piece of torn retina disappeared after one day. A few days later (now), I notice my eyesight is much sharper and colors are beautifully vivid. The floaters are also a little bit less bothersome, especially when I go outside. Luftig did not say what color combinations should be used for floaters. He only said that all manner of floating spots, cobwebs and clouds disappeared as a result of the light treatment, and the vitreous "changed from its watery state to assume a more natural, gel-like consistency". It makes sense - the retina is supported on a light-sensitive pigment layer (the RPE) from which it gets its photochemicals. Without light, the RPE, therefore the retina and probably the hyalurocytes, will not be activated. It also means that if your hyalurocytes are completely dead, even the light treatment will not activate them to generate HA to keep the vitreous collagen fibrils apart. But, why not experiment. After all, we do have a whole spectrum of wavelengths to choose from. Finally, I have to add the following standard paragraph with which we are all familiar. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCLAIMER: The statements by the author on this website are the opinions of the author. They are given herein for educational purposes and are not meant to constitute medical advice. Anyone applying them therefore does so at their sole discretion. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Having said that - Good luck!
|
|
|
Post by Larry on Nov 22, 2004 16:18:31 GMT -5
Hello again Quartermax,
You must have done a lot of research. Thanks for sharing it. I'm curious what's your current floater situation (how many and how bad are they) and what results have you obtained. I know you said a recently formed one disappeared after a day of LED therapy, but that could be just a fluke that may have moved away on its own. If you have other floaters are there any noticable changes after using the LEDs?
Thanks again,
Larry
|
|
|
Post by Quatermax on Nov 22, 2004 21:14:27 GMT -5
Hi there Larry Current situation is the same old veil type floaters that basically swing up and down or left to right and vice-versa, fast, in a "syrup". It`s a pretty disgusting visual effect. There are about 2 or 3 of these large "veils" in each eye, but at times they also look like flies stuck to a rippling, syrupy body. I think what I`m looking at are the remnants of the posterior vitreous face, in each eye. Yes, the floating back dot could have been blood which was quickly re-absorbed. I haven`t seen it again. Its disappearance could have been a fluke. As for the effect of the LED`s on the posterior vitreous face, I can only say it`s a little less bothersome after doing the treatment. I should continue with the LEDs to see what further improvements, if any, I can make. I don`t think it will make them any worse, at any rate, but I too am rather lazy when it comes to a daily routine of therapy. It would be nice to have feedback from other people, pre-PVD and post-PVD, who are also doing LED therapy.
|
|
|
Post by Larry on Nov 24, 2004 18:37:54 GMT -5
I am pre-PVD with some small floaters. I guess I'm one of the luckier ones. Please keep the rest of us informed if you have significant progress. I'm not sure I'm ready to try the LEDs just yet, but I'm interested to hear your results.
|
|
|
Post by Quatermax on Nov 26, 2004 11:14:11 GMT -5
Some of you may have heard by now that there appear to be two new treatment options for floaters. Both involve inserting fine needles into the eye. The first, which is said to be under trials at the University of Houston, Texas, involves inserting an attractive "pole" rod which is supposed to attract the floaters to the rod so as to form chelated material, after which the rod is withdrawn. The second. which was developed at a hospital in Linz, Austria, is the insertion of a "fine needle" to literally pick the floaters out, one by one. The Austrian TV were very enthusiastic about this and did a special report. Dr. Geller commented that the insertion of any object in the eye is never without risk. I agree. I wish they would expend their energies on totally non-invasive treatment options. Of course, one fine needle is better than the three used in a vitrectomy. But how do you address massive floaters with a picking needle, e.g., the posterior vitreous face, as in my case. And how do you prevent the formation of new floaters. Do you go back for another "pick" every time you get a new one? No, this doesn`t make sense. It makes better sense to do things without the risk of inserting a needle into the eye. Today, we have transport agents which might be able to carry vitreous modulators into the vitreous from topically applied eye drops. There are also very low power lasers which could affect the vitreous, or the modulators we introduce into the vitreous, so as to not only target the clumped collagen, but also alter the vitreous so that it is less prone to develop opacities and enhance/restore its function of retinal support.
|
|
|
Post by Larry on Nov 30, 2004 0:25:30 GMT -5
Wow Quartermax, where do you find this stuff? I've researched many hours on the net and haven't found the really interesting things you've uncovered.
I hope the needle removal idea proves successful. Although as you say it doesn't prevent the possibility of new floaters forming, nor does it restore the vitreous, but it would clean up my vision. That alone would be so welcome.
Please pass along any links you have, I'd like very much to read the articles.
|
|
|
Post by Larry on Nov 30, 2004 2:51:52 GMT -5
Ahh, I see where you found this info. Never mind the previous request.
Our technology, as you say, is far to invasive. Oh how I wish we could just let a few nanites loose in the vitreous to act as garbage collectors.
|
|
|
Post by Moderator on Nov 30, 2004 4:59:36 GMT -5
Because of university exams I haven't had much time to read through all of that, sorry! But I will when I get all this work done because this seems like very good information! I agree that Vitrase seems an unlikely cure because by liquifying the gel, the collegen will still be there! Quatermaster, you also mentioned Luftig. I was fortunate enough to have gotten in touch with Ramon (www.floatershell.com) and he sent me a partial digital copy of Luftig's book. I haven't read much of that either, but it seems interesting, although the credibility is somewhat questionable partly because it was written back at around 1950. Light treatment is pretty interesting and I've nearly forgotten all about it until now! This is really worth looking into. I'll be checking back on this topic soon ------------------------------------------------------------------ Just for your information, By the way, if you haven't been, www.floatershell.com (Floaters Hell) and www.eye-floaters.com are other good eye floater sites that you can visit to get good information.
|
|
|
Post by Quatermax on Dec 1, 2004 20:35:56 GMT -5
Dear Yenny May I point out here that the fact that Dr. Luftig practised his light therapy from 1930-1960 and wrote about it in 1947 has no bearing on its credibility. In the book, Dr. Luftig has this to say regarding the credibility of his treatment. Medical Antagonism to Unorthodox Methods of Treatment [/center] "In this country, many of my restored patients who had been suffering from so-called incurable diseases were puzzled why their recovery could not be brought to the knowledge of other sufferers through the medium of medical journals. The simple answer is that professional jealousy makes this impossible. Practical experience teaches that orthodox physicians and eye specialists are not amenable to therapeutic methods, if the healing effects, however successful and outstanding they may be, are the result of unorthodox and not officially taught measures. That is the state of affairs as it has existed and is still existing at present. As a matter of fact, orthodox eye surgeons entirely ignore everything that is unorthodox, and their antagonism goes so far that even any mention of case reports is prevented in official medical journals (see Epilogue, p. 233)." And in the Epilogue, the following is written: "No matter how good and satisfactory a curative result may be, it is entirely ignored by orthodox physicians. This is not just my personal opinion on the subject, but a fact which is born out by practical experience. The opposition is so great that no publication of any case takes place by medical journals or any paper which has a medical advisor, if the results are achieved by an unorthodox physician who does not apply the officially taught methods. That is why in this country, medical journals do not contain references to such case reports, and why my method is not brought to the knowledge of orthodox eye specialists and general practitioners". "As regards, the majority of orthodox eye surgeons, I am well aware of the fact that they are not and will not be inclined to repudiate their own operative methods in favour of my non-operative treatment of eye diseases. This is only too natural. How can it be different when they have been taught and trained to treat eye diseases, such as cataract, glaucoma, retinal detachment and squint by way of surgical operations? The opposition of eye specialists is all the more understandable, as it exposes obvious mistakes and errors of operative treatment of eye diseases. I should also not be astonished if orthodox physicians continued to ignore my non-operative treatment altogether, because it places them in an awkward position, and to dislike this is only human". "No-one who has not had a sufficiently long experience with all the healing measures of my curative treatment is in a position to give an unbiased and objective opinion." "There are prejudiced physicians and eye specialists, who do not want to be convinced. On principle, they condemn or minimize everything that is new or different from their accustomed methods. They overlook the fundamental principle of modern therapeutics - namely that the healing art is a science which rests on actual facts and long-standing experiences, and not on preconceived opinions and theoretical grounds. In medicine, the sole criterion by which a method can be judged is the therapeutic end-effect of the measures applied. Nothing counts but the successes achieved and the satisfaction of the patient." "I have seen enough cases, which show that operative treatment not only fails to remove the eye disease, but may often also aggravate the visual trouble or even destroy the sight altogether. Orthodox treatment of the eyes requires, therefore, an entire re-orientation, as regards the ways and means of dealing with eye diseases. The actual prejudices have to be dropped if the best interests of the patient are to be served. Although I know that orthodox eye specialists will not readily give up their old-established methods, however unsatisfactory their results may be compared with those obtained by the non-operative therapy which I recommend, this book would, from the professional point of view, fulfil a special purpose if my discussions gave at least the first impetus to such a re-orientation and reform of insufficient and antiquated orthodox methods of eye treatment. There is no other branch of medicine in which there is a more urgent need for better and more rational methods than in the official treatment of eye diseases." On floaters, we find the following: "Floating spots are another very annoying and alarming trouble, which is removed by the treatment. As a consequence of the formation of opacities in the vitreous, the patient perceives variously shaped structures which float before the eye to and fro in a more or less considerable amount and appear as dark dots, threads, flakes, cobwebs, clouds and skin-like films. These moving particles and the fluidification of the vitreous disappear, because the morbid changes which result from nutritional disturbances can be remedied by improved nutrition of all eye tissues. It is possible to bring its watery state back to a normal condition, so that the small particles swimming in the liquefied vitreous are no longer shifted freely in all directions when the eye is moved. As it is the aim of the therapy to strengthen the health of the eye in its entirety, the vitreous shares in the curative effect. It assumes a more natural, jelly-like consistence, and the floating specks before the eyes become gradually absorbed." I think if we had access to Luftig`s optical equipment, and detailed notes, we would have enough to repeat his work which includes the gradual restoration of the vitreous. All I can do is to see whether light therapy with colored and white LEDs has any positive effect. In any case, this book and all records of it recently disappeared from the catalogue of a prestigious ophthalmology library which previously claimed to own it, so I have decided to reprint extracts from it here.
|
|
|
Post by Larry on Dec 2, 2004 2:20:54 GMT -5
I can agree with the part about how eye specialists take a negative view of new ideas. I've only seen a few, and although friendly, were very pessimistic toward solving the vitreous floater problem. Other threads I've read paint ophthalmologists as being annoyed when the patient’s complaint is a floater.
I still have trouble picturing how different wavelengths of light are going to firm up the vitreous, and even more difficult to believe, reabsorb floaters, if I'm reading the doctors claims correctly. Well, I'm just a layman looking for answers, so I'll keep reading the information presented here.
|
|
|
Post by GRab68000 on Jan 13, 2005 12:08:22 GMT -5
Hi Guys, I read your posts and I'd like to know more about Dr. Luftig work. Where can I find a copy of his books?
|
|
|
Post by Moderator on Jan 22, 2005 22:07:42 GMT -5
Ramon of www.floatershell.com made a partial PDF version of Luftig's book. I will ask him for permission for post it here
|
|
Gizmo
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by Gizmo on Mar 17, 2005 7:43:37 GMT -5
Hello.
What Quatermax explained sounds very exciting. I do agree that there are many alternative ways in medecine. Orthodoxe doctors refuse new concepts, as there are not "scientifically proven, mesurable, and repeatable". Of course, it helps to stay away from charlatans. However, to much scepticism prevent from opening one's mind to new ways of thinking, healing and curing people.
Well, I don't think theories dating 1920 are less valuable than today's one. Many elders in asia help people living nowadays (I think about yoga, zen, meditation and so on).
Well, I think that ff this Dr. Luftig found a way to eliminate floaters and restore the good way to work for the vetreous with is technique, there should be somebody else, somewhere else in the world, who thought about it too. We must transform ourselves into info hunters to find this (or these) people and experiment this technique, which seems very effective.
Quatermax, do you continue your color therapy ? What is your status ? Do your floaters reduced ?
|
|