Entertained by my own EIMC wrote:
> Hi John,
>> You just promoted a positive state of/in my mind by letting me know your
> sight is better!
> It was very nice to hear!
The vision issue has been a total pain in the arse. Four years down the
drain and now I'm catching up. Ironically the solution to my problems
came from two separate pieces of Aussie research, neither of which were
kwown by the various specialists I consulted. Word of warning here: if
you have a difficult to diagnose condition, don't trust one doctor,
always be prepared to seek other opinions. The problem for the medical
profession is that there is just too much information out there, it is
becoming increasingly beholden upon the individual to take an active
part in the care of their health. This, of course, is loaded with peril
because it is very easy to misinterpret research. If you don't believe
me, then have a look at some of the studies on current medical
practices and you will be surprised at the number of untested
procedures. Evidence based my ass. It can't be helped, such in the
nature of our current understanding.
> I know you can [given your capable intellect combined with obviously
> *enough* freedom from "specifically/synaptically hibernated" (and thereby)
> "intuition trapping" (so to speak) neural links to your own lifetime's needs
> or instincts], provide valuable insightful input into any ongoing relevant
> debate or forum.
>> It is good to know people like you exist and act as a counterweight to all
> 'otherwise inclined and motivated' types who throw their weight around.
>> (I only hope I wasn't inadvertently including myself amongst these "types".
> At least I have tired not to be a totally turgid case of AEVASIVE handling
> of "tragedy" - as in a ditto handling of "potentially overwhelmingly onerous
>> Best regards,