30th September 2011
Having failed to find sensible information or analysis from the previous eye specialist I had been to, I decided to try one more. My aim was to get certain tests conducted – tests that, based on my research, are pivotal to the identification and hence resolution of the dry eye problem I developed last October.
I prepared thoroughly for the visit, having read about 10-15 journal articles, including skimming through key findings of the 170 page report on the world's latest academic workshop on this topic (linked here – 15MB). In other words, I was thoroughly prepared (my 2 page Word document for the visit attached).
The doctor started off by asking me whether I drink enough water each day.
What an IDIOT!
I tersely responded that there had been NO CHANGE to my water consumption in October 2010 when this problem started.
Then he said something inane about keeping the eyes away from airconditioning. I'm sorry, Mr. Doctor, but normal eyes (with good tear glands) are happily able to cope with airconditioning. This was some kind of quack, it seemed at first glance.
He then seemed to be interested in studying the BACK of my eye – but the back of my eyes is perfectly fine.
Politely I had to direct him to study my mebomian glands (MG) carefully which he did for a minute and declared them normal.
Not at all satisfied, I asked whether he could get a meibography and other tests conducted to determine the health of these glands. He said he was not familiar with the test. I showed him the extract from the world's latest workshop on the topic (I had taken the 170 page printout with me) but he seemed completely disinterested.
Instead, he showed me a visual image on his computer screen of the slit image (magnified photo) of my MG – which seemed normal at first glance, even to me. However, without detailed meibography it is impossible to confirm whether the MG have been permanently affected in any way.
More problematically, when I tried to explain the history of my case and what has worked and what has not, he kept interrupting.
In particular I've been applying antibiotics recently. That has significantly eased the possible bacterial load in the glands. In addition to applying Neosporin ointment (the tube in my possession is by now 15 years old), I had managed to get a prescription for a particular antibiotic (doxycycline 100mg) for a week from another doctor. But that (in my view – based on considerable review of the medical literature) is simply not enough to destroy all bacteria.
I asked this specialist, therefore, to prescribe low intensity antibiotics (doxycycline 20mg) for three months. He declined.
He finally gave me anti-inflammatory eyedrops and some diet supplements.
Very disappointing. $150 spent once again, to no avail. No test conducted. No antibiotic tried. Just more of the same (anti-inflammatory) which DOESN'T work in this case.
After visiting 4 doctors (including 2 specialists), 3 optometrists, and consulting with one Indian eye specialist over email, I'm BACK TO MY OWN RESOURCES – back to Dr. Google and electronic medical journal databases.
When talking to medical "specialists" I get the sense I'm talking to people who have CLOSED THEIR MINDS.
They are simply NOT interested in conducting appropriate tests. They make up their mind WITHOUT analysis. They don't even listen to the patient properly – despite the patient having studied this issue carefully for nearly one year.
I'm getting really upset at the monopoly of the medical profession.
The more I see of doctors, the less I respect the medical profession.
If only we could unbundle the servlces provided by this profession, things might get better – at least for INTELLIGENT patients capable of critical thinking. Tests should be readily available in the open market on payment. That way I wouldn't have to waste hundreds of dollars on stupid doctors but get myself tested fully – for half the time and money I'm spending on stupid doctors.
Medicines should also be supplied in the open market – WITHOUT REGULATION. At least then I could get the antibiotics I need.
(Of course, Australia is the backwater of the world where perhaps the tests which are widely available in USA are not even available. Open competition and trade would fix that.)
Looking forward to a trip to India to accumulate antibiotics
By now I'm almost 98% normal after having self-diagnosed and self-treated myself. But one thing I'll do is to get myself FULLY TESTED when I'm in India in February, and stock up on a lot of antibiotics.
Thank god for the relatively unregulated and chaotic Indian market where all medicines are readily available WITHOUT prescription. Of course I'll need to get some prescription made so that Australian customs won't make a fuss on my return.
30th September 2011
Politicians and pundits portray Herbert Hoover as a defender of laissez faire governance whose dogmatic commitment to small government led him to stand by and do nothing while the economy collapsed in the wake of the stock market crash in 1929. In fact, Hoover had long been a critic of laissez faire. As president, he doubled federal spending in real terms in four years. He also used government to prop up wages, restricted immigration, signed the Smoot-Hawley tariff, raised taxes, and created the Reconstruction Finance Corporation—all interventionist measures and not laissez faire. Unlike many Democrats today, President Franklin D. Roosevelt's advisers knew that Hoover had started the New Deal. One of them wrote, "When we all burst into Washington … we found every essential idea [of the New Deal] enacted in the 100-day Congress in the Hoover administration itself."
Hoover's big-spending, interventionist policies prolonged the Great Depression, and similar policies today could do similar damage. Dismantling the mythical presentation of Hoover as a "do-nothing" president is crucial if we wish to have a proper understanding of what did and did not work in the Great Depression so that we do not repeat Hoover's mistakes today.
Btw, I commend the following talk by Steve, entitled, "Do We Really Need a Central Bank?". Steve's depth of knowledge is outstanding.
29th September 2011
I'm currently having a debate with a FB group called Say No to "GANESH VERSUS THE THIRD REICH" regarding the Council of Indians in Australia that is trying to block the staging of a play in Australia.
But as expected, their counterpart in India – a fanatic group of Muslims – has objected to a cartoon published on 20 September 2011 in Indore (these people seem to be made for each other).
I've requested a friend in Indore for a scanned copy of the cartoon, but in the meanwhile let me note my ABSOLUTE FRUSTRATION and unhappiness with people all over the world who are trying to repress and block freedom.
Please let us learn to live and let live. Let people say what they wish. We need a thick skin and a lot of tolerance. Don't take the world into medievalism.
* * *
A person on this FB group alleged that they were being "harmed" by the play.
What's the harm? Can you be very explicit and very detailed? Where is the cut on your body? Where is the blood? Have you been hospitalised?
Harm does not always need to be physical or involve physical injuries or cuts. An injured person does not always need to be hospitalized. Even illnesses can be physical and non-physical.
what precisely was the harm? If not physical then where? In the head? Which part of the head hurt? Can we have X-rays of the head? (or whatever it is that detects that pain)?
Waiting for a response. Will update as more info comes in.
28th September 2011
A good friend from Sydney on FB wrote:
Freedom of speech does not give a permit to denigrate a race or religion. Freedom of speech is a relative thing. It has its limits.
Dear Y, freedom of speech must be ABSOLUTE except for libel, false statements, and incitement to violence. This is a fundamental principle of the free society. I commend to you On Liberty by J.S. Mill, and indeed the video that I have linked to this above article.
I might detest MF Hussain's depiction of Hindu goddesses, but will not countenance any government involvement in such matters.
Similarly in Kyle Sandiland's case I fought his misguided views but would not involve government.
I know the Council has not involved the government, but to shut down a play is wrong. Just don't watch it. And if someone is offended, let them file a civil case for compensation for loss of sleep.
For Hindus to become sensitive to words and opinions does Hinduism itself great injustice. I expect this from Islam but not from Hinduism which claims to be tolerant.
Of what use is a claim of tolerance if people can't poke fun at the tolerant person? (and I don't think this play pokes fun at Hinduism, either)?
What's the point of claiming Hinduism to be a tolerant religion when it can't tolerate any adverse comment (even if it was unintended)?
I think Hindus abroad are damaging the reputation of the Hinduism I know of, and admire.