The Day a Five-Minute Laser Restored My Sight - The Day I Was "Blinded" by Two Specialists

The Day a Five-Minute Laser Restored My Sight

A Personal Tribute and Dedication to Dr. Azlan Azha Musa

 

By  Lim Ju Boo  Chinese name lin ru wu (林 如 武)

 

A Dedication

This article is dedicated with sincere gratitude and appreciation to Dr. Azlan Azha Musa, Consultant Ophthalmologist at Tun Hussein Onn National Eye Hospital.

As doctors, we often spend our lives caring for others. Occasionally, however, we find ourselves on the other side of the consultation table, becoming patients ourselves. When that happens, we place our trust in the knowledge, skill, and compassion of fellow physicians.

This is the story of how Dr. Azlan restored my vision, renewed my confidence, and reminded me of the immense difference that a competent, caring, and attentive doctor can make in the life of a patient

 

I underwent cataract surgery on my right eye on 17 May 2023 and on my left eye on 31 January 2024 at Hospital Kuala Lumpur. Following both operations, my vision improved significantly and life once again appeared brighter and clearer.

Unfortunately, during 2025, my vision gradually became blurred again, particularly in my left eye.

As a clinician, I suspected Posterior Capsule Opacification (PCO), commonly known as a "secondary cataract." Although the cataract itself had been removed, microscopic lens epithelial cells remaining after surgery can multiply over time on the posterior capsule supporting the intraocular lens implant. This creates a cloudy membrane that scatters light and reduces visual clarity. Posterior Capsular Opacification (PCO) is easily treated painlessly as an outpatient using a  procedure called YAG (yttrium-aluminum-garnet) laser capsulotomy. 

It requires no surgical incisions, has essentially no downtime, and is performed right in your ophthalmologist's office

Convinced that PCO might be the cause of my symptoms, I attended the Ophthalmology Department of Hospital Kuala Lumpur on 11 June 2026 hoping to get the laser treatment. 

After enduring a four-month wait for an appointment and a further four-hour wait at the clinic, I was eventually examined by a lady doctor using a slit-lamp biomicroscope. After she examined both my eyes I immediately asked her if I have PCO? 

To my surprise, the lady doctor informed me that both my eyes were normal and that I

did not have PCO on either eye 

I was extremely surprised. She told me all I needed was a pair of new spectacles. I was even more surprised because normally the artificial lens - intraocular lens (IOL) used in cataract operation is made from clear materials like silicon or acrylic and neither do they change their refractive index or diopter power. These power of these LOL are permanently fixed and remains stable unlike the natural lens where the refractive index can change over the years due to aging because natural lenses are made of protein that tends to denature over time due to aging, prolonged exposure to ultraviolet light,  free radicals and diabetes. These factors cause the natural lens to become opaque  resulting in cataract. But both my natural lenses have already been replaced by IOL during my cataract surgery. Their refractive index were already fixed. So how does a pair of spectacles help to restore my blurred vision? Why do I need a new pair of spectacles I asked myself  as the lady doctor in the ophthalmology department in HKL told me. She insisted  I did  not have PCO in both  my eyes, and both were normal? To made my surprise worse, she told me I need to be on a long waiting list to come back to get a prescription for a pair of spectacles? As a doctor myself with additional knowledge in optical physics I could not accept her explanation. But I could not do anything because there is no way I could examine my own eyes even if I was an ophthalmologist. There was nothing I could do but take her word for it - that there was no PCO in both my eyes and that my eyes were normal and that all I needed was only a new pair of spectacles? So taking her word for granted I went to see an optician in a spectacle shop near my place  a few days later and told him  I needed a new pair of spectacles. The optician examined my eyes using a computerized auto-refractor to quickly estimates my refractive errors (for myopia, hyperopia, or astigmatism)  before bringing me to the eye-testing room to recheck my vision  again. After testing over and over again using numerous lenses of different powers he told there was nothing wrong with my spectacles and there was something internally wrong with my eyes - and that spectacles are  not  going to improve my vision. He suggested I go and see an eye specialist. 

So I was back to where I started.

The eye doctor told me my eyes were normal and I only need spectacles,  but the optician told me there was nothing wrong with my spectacles and suggested the problem lay within the  eyes themselves. I was naturally a bit

confused with two different  experts telling me two conflicting opinions.  The eye specialist (or was she an ordinary doctor placed in the eye department?) -  telling me there was nothing wrong with my eyes, and all I needed was a new pair of spectacles. The spectacle specialist told me there was nothing wrong with my spectacles, all I needed was to treat my eyes. Caught between these two specialists telling me different things, what shall I do? 

But within me, I still strongly believed it was my eyes  with  PCO, and not my spectacle  because immediately after my cataract operation my vision was clear on both eyes - with or without spectacles. So how could a spectacle lens or the IOL change their refractive power slightly more than a year after the cataract surgery?  It  just  does not make any scientific sense or logic to me as a research medical scientist. 

 

A week later, on 20 June 2026, I sought a second opinion at Tun Hussein Onn National Eye Hospital.

That decision proved to be one of the best medical decisions I have ever made.

After a relatively short wait, I was seen by Dr. Azlan Azha Musa.

Before examining me, Dr. Azlan listened patiently and attentively to my history. During our conversation, he asked how I knew so much about eye conditions.

I explained that although I was a clinician, ophthalmology was not my specialty.

A few moments later, after a careful slit-lamp examination, Dr. Azlan confirmed my suspicion.

I had Posterior Capsule Opacification.

Not only in my left eye.

But in both eyes he told me.

The diagnosis was immediate, logical, and entirely consistent with my symptoms and my earlier suspicion. 

At that moment I felt a tremendous sense of relief. There was finally an explanation for what I had been experiencing.

More importantly, there was a solution.

Dr. Azlan explained that the condition could be treated with a Nd laser capsulotomy, a procedure lasting only a few minutes.

Because I am a government pensioner, he initially suggested returning to Hospital Kuala Lumpur for treatment. However, after my previous experience, I politely declined and requested that he personally manage my care.

What happened next demonstrated not only professional excellence but genuine kindness.

Dr. Azlan explored the possibility of fee exemption on my behalf and, despite the hospital's regulations requiring payment for the laser procedure itself, he did not charge me a single cent for his consultation.

Shortly afterwards, I was taken to the laser treatment room.

The procedure itself lasted only a few minutes.

The result was remarkable.

Before treatment, my right eye had been clearer than my left.

Within approximately fifteen minutes after the laser treatment, my left eye became clearer than my right.

The difference was immediate and unmistakable.

I entered the hospital with blurred vision.

I walked out seeing clearly.

As a scientist, I understand that there was no miracle involved in the supernatural sense. The explanation lies in the remarkable achievements of medical science, optical physics, laser technology, and the expertise of a skilled ophthalmologist.

Yet to a patient whose world has gradually become cloudy, the restoration of sight feels very much like a miracle.

And that miracle was made possible by Dr. Azlan.

 

A Personal Note of Thanks

Dear Dr. Azlan,

Thank you for your professional expertise.

Thank you for your accurate diagnosis.

Thank you for your kindness, patience, and generosity.

Thank you for treating me not merely as another patient but as a fellow human being.

Most importantly, thank you for restoring one of life's greatest gifts—the ability to see clearly.

I shall always remember your friendly nature, reassuring manner, and willingness to help.

As I jokingly told my friends after the procedure:

"I went in half blind on my left eye and came out seeing clearly again on my left than on my right  "

For that, I remain deeply grateful.

May God bless you abundantly in your work Dr Azlan, and continue to use your knowledge and skills to restore sight and hope to countless others.

With sincere appreciation,

Lim Ju Boo

 

A Lump in The Breast. Is it Cancer? All About Cancer of the Breast

A Lump in the Breast— Does It Mean Cancer? Understanding the Detection and Diagnosis of Breast Cancer 

Note: This articles is divided into 3 continuous parts.

 by:  lim ju boo @ lin ru wu (林 如 武)

 (Part 1)

The discovery of a lump in the breast is one of the most frightening experiences a person can encounter. For many women, the immediate thought is often: “Is this breast cancer?” Yet, despite the understandable anxiety, the reassuring reality is that most breast lumps are not cancerous.

What is perhaps less widely known is that breast cancer is not exclusively a disease of women. Men can also develop breast cancer, although much less commonly. In fact, I once had a former male superior who unfortunately died from breast cancer, a reminder that no one is entirely exempt.

Before fear takes over, it helps to understand what a breast lump actually means and how doctors determine whether it is harmless or dangerous.

Most Breast Lumps Are Benign

When a breast lump is detected by self-examination or during a clinical examination, many people assume the worst. Fortunately, the majority of breast lumps are caused by benign (non-cancerous) conditions.

The likelihood of a lump being cancerous depends heavily on age, family history, imaging findings, and accompanying symptoms. In younger women, especially those under 35 years old, benign conditions are far more common. The often quoted “10- 20 % of breast lumps are cancer”  is too broad as it depends strongly on age, imaging findings, and setting. Younger women have much lower probability; risk rises with age.

Lifetime risk figures varies vary by country and population; using global estimates carefully avoids over generalization. I shall discuss this later.

Some of the most frequent non-cancerous causes include:

Fibrocystic Breast Changes

This is one of the commonest causes of breast lumpiness. Hormonal fluctuations can produce areas of thickened, rope-like, or tender breast tissue that often vary throughout the menstrual cycle.

Breast Cysts

These are fluid-filled sacs that may appear suddenly and often feel smooth and mobile. They frequently become more noticeable or tender before menstruation.

Fibroadenoma

A fibroadenoma is a benign solid tumour made of glandular and connective tissue. It typically feels smooth, rubbery, and movable and is particularly common in younger women.

Fat Necrosis

Previous trauma, surgery, or radiation therapy may damage fatty breast tissue and produce a hard lump that can closely resemble cancer.

Infections and Abscesses

Breast infections, especially during breastfeeding, may cause painful, swollen lumps accompanied by redness, warmth, and fever.

Lipomas

These are harmless accumulations of fatty tissue that usually feel soft and painless.

Can Touch Alone Tell Whether a Lump Is Cancer?

Unfortunately, no.

Doctors may gain clues from physical examination, but touch alone cannot establish a diagnosis.

Certain characteristics may raise suspicion:

Feature	More Often Benign	More Concerning
Texture	Soft, smooth, rubbery	Hard, firm
Mobility	Freely movable	Fixed to tissue
Borders	Well-defined	Irregular
Behaviour	Changes with cycle	Persistent or enlarging

However, these are only clues, not proof.

Any new breast lump, persistent change, skin dimpling, nipple inversion, bloody nipple discharge, or unexplained breast asymmetry should be medically assessed promptly.

The Role of Mammography: Why an X-Ray Can Raise Suspicion

One of the most important screening tools for breast cancer is the mammogram. A mammogram is essentially a specialized, low-dose X-ray examination of the breast.

A common question is:

How can an X-ray suggest cancer without examining tissue under a microscope?

The answer is simple.

A mammogram does not diagnose cancer directly. It detects structural patterns that are statistically associated with malignancy. Mammography is not simply “detecting cancer by X-ray appearances” - it is detecting patterns associated with malignancy and estimating probability. 

A mammogram cannot be used to confirm a diagnosis of breast cancer. It is used only as a preliminary screening test, and not for the diagnosis of cancer of the breast. Only biopsy extracted for histopathological examination (HPE) is the gold standard for final diagnosis. 

Cancer changes how tissue grows and organizes itself.

Radiologists examine several important features:

Spiculated Masses

Benign lumps tend to be smooth and rounded.

Cancerous lesions often appear as irregular masses with star-like projections extending into surrounding tissue.

Microcalcifications

Tiny calcium deposits can develop within breast ducts.

Certain patterns, especially clustered, irregular calcifications, may indicate early cancer such as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

Architectural Distortion

Sometimes no obvious mass exists, but the normal internal architecture appears stretched, pulled, or distorted.

Asymmetry

One breast may show an abnormal density absent from the opposite side.

Understanding the BI-RADS Classification

Radiologists standardize findings using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS):

1. BI-RADS 1: Normal.

2. BI-RADS 2: Benign finding.

3. BI-RADS 3: Probably benign (<2% likelihood of malignancy); short follow-up recommended.

4. BI-RADS 4: Suspicious abnormality; biopsy usually advised.

5. BI-RADS 5: Highly suggestive of malignancy (>95% likelihood).

6. BI-RADS 6: Cancer already confirmed by biopsy.

Why Biopsy Remains the Gold Standard

No imaging method, not mammography, ultrasound, CT, MRI, or PET scan, can confirm breast cancer with absolute certainty.

The definitive diagnosis requires:

Biopsy → Histopathology Examination (HPE)

This allows pathologists to:

1. Confirm cancer.

2. Determine tumour type.

3. Measure aggressiveness (grade).

4. Identify hormone receptor status:

o Estrogen receptor (ER)

o Progesterone receptor (PR)

o HER2 status

These findings determine treatment decisions and prognosis.

How Common Is Breast Cancer?

Breast cancer remains the most commonly diagnosed cancer among women worldwide.

Lifetime risk varies geographically but is approximately:

1. Around 1 in 8 women in several higher-income populations.

2. Lower in some developing regions due to differences in demographics, reproductive patterns, and screening access.

Age remains one of the strongest risk factors, with incidence increasing significantly after age 50.

Can Men Develop Breast Cancer?

Unfortunately my answer is - Yes.

Although rare, men possess breast tissue and therefore can develop breast cancer.

Before puberty, boys and girls have similar primitive breast duct structures. During female puberty, estrogen stimulates extensive breast development.

Male breast tissue remains relatively undeveloped because testosterone suppresses further growth.

However, those ductal cells remain biologically active enough to become malignant. Male breast cancer is uncommon but important not to miss.  

Important Risk Factors in Men

1. Increasing age

2. Inherited Family history

3. BRCA mutations (especially BRCA2)

4. Obesity

5. Chronic liver disease

6. Chest radiation exposure

7. Klinefelter syndrome

Male breast cancer accounts for less than 1% of all breast cancers.

Because screening is not routinely performed in men, diagnosis is sometimes delayed.

A breast lump should never trigger panic, but neither should it be ignored.

Most lumps prove to be benign. Yet early evaluation remains essential because when breast cancer is detected early, treatment outcomes improve dramatically.

Modern medicine combines clinical examination, imaging, biopsy, molecular analysis, surgery, and targeted therapy into a coordinated approach that has transformed breast cancer from a disease once feared as uniformly fatal into one that is increasingly treatable—and often curable.

References for Further Reading

1. World Health Organization – Breast Cancer Facts 

2. American Cancer Society – Breast Cancer Overview 

3. American College of Radiology – BI-RADS Atlas 

4. National Cancer Institute – Breast Cancer Screening 

5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – Breast Cancer Information 

6. Mayo Clinic – Breast Lumps and Diagnosis

----------------

Part 2

Why Does Breast Cancer Occur More Commonly in Some Countries Than Others? Is Diet Protective? 

One of the most interesting observations in medicine is that breast cancer does not occur equally across the world.

Historically, breast cancer rates in many Asian countries have been lower than in Western nations, although the gap has gradually narrowed over recent decades as Asian societies become more urbanized and adopt modern lifestyles.

Malaysia occupies an intermediate position between lower-incidence Asian populations and higher-incidence Western populations.

Older Malaysian registry estimates suggested an age-standardized incidence of approximately 46 cases per 100,000 women annually, translating roughly to a lifetime risk of about 1 in 20 women.

For comparison (approximate age-standardized incidence rates historically reported):

Region	Approximate incidence per 100,000 women
Malaysia	~46
Asia overall	~29
Singapore	~66
Japan	~52
South Korea	~52
European Union	~80
United States	~90

These figures change with time and screening practices but illustrate a consistent trend: breast cancer has traditionally been more common in Western countries than in most Asian populations.

Why does this difference exist?

The explanation appears multifactorial.

Reproductive and Hormonal Factors

Women in many traditional Asian societies historically had:

1. Earlier first childbirth

2. More pregnancies

3. Longer breastfeeding duration

Each of these reduces cumulative lifetime exposure to estrogen and progesterone stimulation of breast tissue.

As societies become more urbanized, women often delay childbirth, have fewer children, and breastfeed less frequently, factors associated with increasing breast cancer risk.

Body Weight and Physical Activity

Obesity, especially after menopause, is associated with higher breast cancer risk.

Fat tissue is not simply storage tissue; it also acts as an endocrine organ capable of converting androgens into estrogen.

Modern sedentary lifestyles, reduced physical activity, and increasing obesity rates are thought to contribute significantly to rising breast cancer incidence across Asia.

Could Diet Play a Role?

Diet has attracted enormous scientific interest.

No single food prevents breast cancer.

However, dietary patterns rich in vegetables, legumes, whole foods, and lower alcohol intake appear to be associated with lower overall cancer risk.

One food receiving particular attention is soy.

Soya Foods — Protective or Harmful?

This topic has generated considerable confusion.

Because soy contains natural plant compounds called isoflavones (phytoestrogens), some people feared soy might behave like estrogen and stimulate breast cancer.

Surprisingly, large human studies generally do not support this fear.

Several studies performed in Asian populations found that women consuming moderate to higher amounts of traditional soy foods tended to show lower breast cancer rates compared with women consuming very little soy.

One large prospective study involving approximately 300,000 Chinese women found that each increase of 10 mg/day of soy    isoflavones was associated with a modest reduction in breast cancer risk in pooled analyses.

Interestingly, Malaysian research has also reported that greater intake of soy-milk and soy products was associated with lower breast cancer risk alongside breastfeeding and physical activity.

How might soy work?

Researchers propose several mechanisms:

1. Soy isoflavones may weakly bind estrogen receptors and compete with stronger natural estrogens.

2. Soy may influence genes controlling cell growth and programmed cell death.

3. Soy-rich diets often replace higher-calorie processed foods and animal fats.

But caution is important.

This does not mean eating large amounts of soy prevents breast cancer. 

Nor does it mean women should start taking concentrated soy supplements.

Current evidence is more supportive of consuming traditional soy foods in moderation such as:

1. Tofu

2. Tempeh

3. Soya milk

4. Edamame

5. Whole soybeans

as part of an overall healthy dietary pattern rather than viewing soy as a “miracle anti-cancer food.”

Nutritionists and nutrition scientists currently do not have a definitive answer, but research is on going. 

Perhaps one of the most important lessons from global breast cancer epidemiology is this:

Genes may load the gun—but environment, hormones, lifestyle, body weight, reproductive choices, physical activity, and diet may influence whether the trigger is pulled.

No food guarantees protection.

Yet healthy living appears to shift the odds quietly in our favour.

----------------------

Part 3

Breast Cancer: Malaysia and Singapore Compared - Can Prosperity Change Breast Cancer Risk? 

An interesting epidemiological observation emerges when comparing Malaysia and Singapore.

Both countries contain substantial populations of Chinese ancestry and share historical, cultural, and dietary roots. Yet breast cancer rates have historically been somewhat higher in Singapore than in Malaysia.

At first glance, one may ask:

“Could genetics explain the difference?”

Probably not entirely.

Human genes do not change dramatically within one or two generations.

When disease patterns shift over a relatively short period of time, epidemiologists often look first at environmental and lifestyle factors.

Epidemiologists think by comparing populations that are genetically related but environmentally different is one of the most powerful ways to understand disease. It is similar to how researchers study Japanese populations in Japan versus Japanese migrants to Hawaii or California—those studies taught us a great deal about the role of lifestyle in chronic diseases. 

Similarly, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Hong Kong, Taiwan and elsewhere in SE Asia have large population of Chinese and it would be interesting to look at the differences in the cancer rates among them with the same ancestry and genetic patterns. 

Singapore underwent rapid economic development earlier and more intensely than Malaysia. With prosperity came changes that improved health in many areas, but also altered biological exposures linked to chronic diseases.

Several factors may contribute.

Delayed Childbearing and Smaller Families

One of the strongest associations with breast cancer is cumulative hormonal exposure.

Women who experience earlier first pregnancies, multiple pregnancies, and longer periods of breastfeeding generally show lower lifetime breast cancer risk.

As societies become wealthier and more urbanized, women often pursue higher education and careers, marry later, and have fewer children.

These social changes may inadvertently increase cumulative estrogen exposure over a lifetime.

Urban Lifestyle and Reduced Physical Activity

Economic growth frequently changes daily activity patterns.

Traditional lifestyles involving more walking and manual work gradually transition toward desk-based occupations, increased transportation use, and reduced physical movement.

Physical inactivity and weight gain, particularly after menopause, are recognized contributors to breast cancer risk.

Dietary Transition Rather Than Wealth Alone

One should be cautious not to conclude that wealth itself causes breast cancer.

Instead, prosperity often changes eating behaviour.

Nutrition: Traditional Asian diets historically emphasized:

1. vegetables,

2. fish,

3. legumes,

4. soya products,

5. moderate caloric intake.

Modern urban diets may contain:

1. more processed foods

2. greater energy density

3. increased animal fat

4. sugary beverages

5. larger portion sizes.

The overall pattern matters more than any single food. However, we need to look at the changes of dietary patterns among the Chinese in Malaysia and Singapore after their separation?

Longer Life Expectancy Changes the Numbers

Another important point is often overlooked.

Breast cancer is strongly age-related.

Countries with longer average lifespans naturally observe more breast cancer because more women survive long enough to reach higher-risk decades.

Therefore, part of Singapore’s higher incidence may reflect success in public health and longevity rather than worsening biology.

Better Screening Detects More Cases

Singapore has extensive access to screening mammography and health awareness.

Paradoxically, countries with better healthcare systems sometimes report more breast cancer simply because more cases are found early.

Lower recorded incidence may occasionally reflect under-detection rather than lower true occurrence.

Migration Studies: One of Nature’s Experiments

Researchers have long observed that when Asian populations migrate to Western countries, breast cancer incidence tends to rise over generations and move closer to the rates of the host country.

This suggests that genes remain important, but environment and lifestyle may strongly influence whether genetic risk becomes expressed.

Perhaps this reminds us that modernization is neither wholly good nor wholly bad.

Prosperity gives longer life, better healthcare, and greater opportunity, but may also reshape habits that quietly influence disease patterns.

The challenge is not to reject modernization, but to preserve the healthiest parts of traditional living while embracing progress.