 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / September 2006Charles is the pickiest person ever! He sees 20/25 without correction!
You are forgetting he is among the pickiest patients ever. His prescription is +.25 -1 for a spherical equivalent of -.25! His own optometrists are fustrated with him because he complains about being -.25 or +.25 he doesnt even want to wear glasses because they dont make his vision as crisp as his uncomfortable RGPs do. He wanted to get orthoK which he did and he is *still* not happy with -.5 astigmatism! I cant believe someone could be such a picky perfectionist. I think, to be frank he needs to see a psychiatrist to diagnosize any underlaying issues. He is going to great trouble fiddling around with RGPs and his eyes when he can see 20/25 without correction! I feel so sorry for him. I understand everyone needs to see clearly but he sees almost 20/20 uncorrected, yet he fiddles with his vision more than I do and I am -4.5! I dont mean to be rude but I stand correct. Charles is so unhappy with his near perfect vision and is even unhappy with his RGPs! > You are forgetting he is among the pickiest patients ever. His > prescription is +.25 -1 for a spherical equivalent of -.25! His own [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > correct. Charles is so unhappy with his near perfect vision and is > even unhappy with his RGPs! Why do you imagine that anyone cares about your opinion? It doesn't matter to me whether you would go around with 1D of astigmatism. I don't want to. -- > Why do you imagine that anyone cares about your opinion? It doesn't > matter to me whether you would go around with 1D of astigmatism. I > don't want to. You also dont want to go around with 20/20 vision that your glasses give you or that -.25 or +.25 your RGPs give you even though your distance vision is 20/15(!) You drive optometrists insane and make them bang their heads on the wall. They have labeled you as picky and difficult. Some of them have just refused to deal with you any longer as they have begun to realize that you are malingering. I think you will be well served by seeing a psychiatrist as your problems go way beyond visual. I have taken a psychology course back in college and I can "see" that your mind is not well. If your eyes were as bad as mine were at -4.5 and not correctable to 20/20 with glasses, youd kill yourself. If you got lasik, youd kill yourself. I am worried about you man even though you dont care. Please seek psychiatric help for your own good! > You are forgetting he is among the pickiest patients ever. His > prescription is +.25 -1 for a spherical equivalent of -.25! His own [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Charles is so unhappy with his near perfect vision and is even unhappy > with his RGPs! Even small amounts of uncorrected refractive error (especially astigmatism) can cause asthenopia (ie. visual discomfort/fatigue) as well as some blurring of vision. So it is entirely reasonable for Charles to want to have this corrected with cl's/glasses. What I think is weird is the fact that you even started a thread regarding this. frank drfran...@gmail.com wrote: > What I think is weird is the fact that you even started a > thread regarding this. > > frank That's because the retard thinks he knows something, anything. > Even small amounts of uncorrected refractive error > (especially astigmatism) can cause asthenopia [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > frank The problem is he isnt happy with any form of correction and always has something to complain about. It is people like him that changed my mind about wanting to be an optometrist. Their jobs are made very difficult by malingering people who complain till the cows come home. Their vision could be 20/30, 20/25 or even 20/20 and yet they are never happy and any glasses or contacts you give them isnt "right" for them. Charles has fustrated some optometrists to the point they just threw him out of their office! > The problem is he isnt happy with any form of correction and always has > something to complain about. It is people like him that changed my mind [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Charles has fustrated some optometrists to the point they just threw > him out of their office! Again the retard can diagnose anyone over the internet. >> The problem is he isnt happy with any form of correction >> and always has something to complain about. It is people [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Again the retard can diagnose anyone over the internet. This isn't Ace's writing either... -Quick Im in agreement with Otis and still say Charles needs a shrink Dear Ace, Some people do not know when they have it "Good". If I could pass all DMV tests -- with naked eye vision -- I would think that was wonderful. But that is indeed a trade-off. If you are working to "clear" your vision, and can "clear" from 20/60 to 20/40 or better, then for yourself you have done the right thing. If I knew that an OD had his own child in a plus (refractive state of zero) and suggested the same (second-opinion) method for me -- I think I would follow his advice, after making certain that the refractive STATE always goes DOWN when you place a minus lens on it. But that is a SCIENTIFIC judgment of facts -- and NOT a medical judgment. That would be a large factor in my decision. Obviously opinions differ on that subject. Best, Otis > >> The problem is he isnt happy with any form of correction > >> and always has something to complain about. It is people [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > -Quick > Obviously opinions differ on that subject. The Iowa attorney general is asking for evidence before rendering his opinion. Say, perhaps you could help him out. Nah. Prolly not. -MT >> Obviously opinions differ on that subject. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Nah. Prolly not. Wow, Otis under investigation in Iowa as well as Pennsylvania? -Quick Dear Ace, Charles has every right to expect very, very sharp vision from a minus lens. That is what ODs do. For a child at 20/40 (passes the DMV) I think that it is an "idea" that should be reviewed -- and the second-opinion considered. But if you are dealing with 20 people a day, it is virtually impossible to "sort out" or discuss this issue of prevention with the parents -- or Charles. So all ODs just provide "Best Visual Acuity", and send the parent and child away "happy". Can you blame them? What would YOU DO if you were an optometrist? You have a person sitting in a chair. They read the chart at 20/50. You put a minus on them and they read 20/15. You must look for "medical" issues. And that takes time. There is no time to discuss other methods. The person like Charles is not tollerant of anything else other that BVA. You are wasting your time if you "attemped" that type of discussion. Further he would question you "motives" if you attempted anything else other than BVA. How would YOU change this system? Please explain. Best, Otis > You are forgetting he is among the pickiest patients ever. His > prescription is +.25 -1 for a spherical equivalent of -.25! His own [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Charles is so unhappy with his near perfect vision and is even unhappy > with his RGPs! > Dear Ace, > > Charles has every right to expect very, very sharp vision > from a minus lens. > > That is what ODs do. Hey genius, we're talking about astigmatism only. Please actually read the posts before you respond and make a fool out of yourself. I'd appreciate it. frank Hey Frank, The question was addressed to Ace -- not you. Why not wait -- and let him answer the question. Otis > > Dear Ace, > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > frank > Hey Frank, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Otis Why wait? Ace won't read the post either, and he will get it wrong, and he will make a fool of himself at which point you will congratulate him. What's to wait for? -Quick > The question was addressed to Ace -- not you. So what's the "second opinion" regarding astigmatism? Is this your new area of expertise, or did you simply mean to hijack the thread? -MT Mike the "ball" in Ace's court. Please let him answer. Lord knows he asks enough questions. Now he needs to supply an answer as to how he would deal with a person with a negative refractive STATE of -1.25 diopters and a Snellen of 20/60 to 20/50. And supply a complete answer in 20 minutes of the tipical OD exam. Otis > > The question was addressed to Ace -- not you. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > -MT > Mike the "ball" in Ace's court. Please let him answer. Is this a directive from the gutter police? I asked you, not Ace, what your "second opinion" has to do with astigmatism. We're waiting for you to answer. Just like we're waiting for you to explain why Grosvenor, Shotwell, Ong, Parssinen and all those other competent researchers could not find evidence of your "staircase myopia." How did they miss it, Otis? -MT otisbrown@pa.net schreef: > Hey Frank, > > The question was addressed to Ace -- not you. Then why not used the emailadress of Ace, Otis. Admit it Otis, by placing this message addressed to Ace you are only spamming for your own silly ideas. Please stay away from this public newsgroup where every body has to accept a response on his question or statement made PUBLIC in this newsgroup. Free to Marcus Porcius Cato's "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam" In conclusion, I think that the "old plus lens therapy junk, recovered by Otis" should be destroyed. Jan (normaly Dutch spoken) > That is what ODs do. You don't know what ODs do. > For a child at 20/40 (passes the DMV) I think that > it is an "idea" that should be reviewed -- and the > second-opinion considered. Along with other "second opinions" like "the earth is flat" and "peach pits cure cancer." > So all ODs just provide "Best Visual Acuity", and > send the parent and child away "happy". Too often I waste time re-educating people who "read on the internet" that "wearing minus causes myopia." > Can you blame them? We blame you. > What would YOU DO if you were an optometrist? You'd think at least SOME of them would be selling prevention, wouldn't you? Other than that guy in china. > How would YOU change this system? Newsgroups are the gutter of the internet and you're the reason why. I don't think we can change that. -MT otisbrown@pa.net: > Dear Ace, > > Charles has every right to expect very, very sharp vision > from a minus lens. Correct, but with a cylindar of -1, he does not need correction, maybe for driving at night or watching a movie from the back seat of a theatre. His uncorrected vision is perhaps 20/25, not only passing the DMV but exceeding this. Therefore glasses are not neccessary. > For a child at 20/40 (passes the DMV) I think that > it is an "idea" that should be reviewed -- and the > second-opinion considered. Some smart S.O optometrists are already holding back from throwing the wretched minus lens on their eyes if they pass the DMV. The child could see the chalkboard fine from the front seat and should probably use reading glasses(with prisms if neccessary) for near work or at least *NOT* bury your nose 6 inches! Hold reading material away! > But if you are dealing with 20 people a day, it is > virtually impossible to "sort out" or discuss > this issue of prevention with the parents -- or > Charles. What I would do is make a website addressing the issue and give every patient a link to it so they can read and make an informed decision to clear their vision or embrace the wretched minus and get stair-case myopia. The choice is theirs. > So all ODs just provide "Best Visual Acuity", and > send the parent and child away "happy". That is why you need to see a second opinion OD so the child's vision is preserved and doesnt end in stair-case myopia which happened to me back when I was 12. > Can you blame them? >What would YOU DO if you were an optometrist? > You have a person sitting in a chair. > They read the chart at 20/50. > You put a minus on them and they > read 20/15. I guess I could tell them they dont need glasses yet and if they take good care of their eyes, they can avoid stair-case myopia and never need the wretched minus. > You must look for "medical" issues. And that > takes time. I would test for things like amblyopia, strabismus, retina tears, major floaters, cateracts, glaucoma. A slight negative refractive state is not a medical issue and something that can go away if you take care of your eyes. > The person like Charles is not tollerant of anything else > other that BVA. You are wasting your time > if you "attemped" that type of discussion. > Further he would question you "motives" if > you attempted anything else other than BVA. Then that is his choice and fault for being ignorant. I would just give him what he wants then shoo him out of there as hes a waste of time. Put down your little doctor bag and take your pills retard. > Put down your little doctor bag and take your pills > retard. Ace didn't write that... compare style and spelling to other posts. Otis didn't write it either. I think we either have a third loon or a better troll. Is it possible Ace can write when not doing halucinogenics? -Quick > Ace didn't write that... compare style and spelling to > other posts. Otis didn't write it either. I think we either [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > -Quick I prefer better troll, thank you. And no, the retard(Ace) can only write when on his magic mushrooms. Dear Ace, Subject: Facing fact -- and choosing the preventive plus. Ace> That is why you need to see a second opinion OD so the child's vision is preserved and doesnt end in stair-case myopia which happened to me back when I was 12. Otis> I do argue the "preventive-plus" as a choice. But it will take an educated parent and "motivated" child to use it correctly. As per Theordore Grosvenor's SUGGESTION, the use of the preventive plus must START at the zero to +1/2 diopter stage. And that would take a parent that would ACCEPT the fact that his child must use a plus for reading, (at the correct distance) -- and I agree that requires a lot of thought. The "control" is almost completely in the parent and child once this issue is understood. As you know some S.O. optometrists will LEAD this effort, because they insist that their own children begin wearing the plus, even with 20/20 -- but a refractive STATE of zero. (That is the pre-curser of myopia-entry.) > Can you blame them? >What would YOU DO if you were an optometrist? > You have a person sitting in a chair. > They read the chart at 20/50. > You put a minus on them and they > read 20/15. Otis> It is very hard of an optometrist to demonstate how EASY that minus lens is -- and then discuss the necessity of NOT USING IT. Very difficult indeed. But some people do "wake up" and use the plus and clear their vision -- provided they are willing to work to always PASS the DMV level test. A "solution" of this nature does require SOME compromise. That is not to say that the Snellen will STAY at 20/40, only that it will take some time to clear to 20/30, 20/25 and 20/20, and the refractive STATE of the natural eye changes in a positive direction. Ace> I guess I could tell them they dont need glasses yet and if they take good care of their eyes, they can avoid stair-case myopia and never need the wretched minus. Otis> At the thrshold, I judge that is must be an either-or choice, since we know from the Oakley-Young study that the un-protected eye will go down by -2 diopters in 4 years -- where as the "plus" group (+1.5 diopters) did not go down. Otis> The real issue is the undestanding as wisdom it takes to "commit" to wearing the plus in this manner. And that becomes a matter of the person's judgment. Otis> But the choice -- what ever it might be -- will indeed affect the person for the rest of his life. Otis> And that is too critical a choice to be made casually, or with out informed consent. Best, Otis > otisbrown@pa.net: > > Dear Ace, [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > Then that is his choice and fault for being ignorant. I would just give > him what he wants then shoo him out of there as hes a waste of time. >cant believe someone could be such a picky perfectionist. I think, to >be frank he needs to see a psychiatrist to diagnosize any underlaying >issues. You're a right one to talk about seeing a psychiatrist. Have you got a job yet? Are you unemployable? Do you have a diagnosis? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.