16 year old with thousand degree glasses contemplating suicide

So it's normal to only be able to see 4 inches away from my face?
That's genetic?

If you ask me...

Anyone with myopia that bad would have been elminated a long long time
ago. Obviously no one can function with a maximum focal point of 4
inches. You cannot read a book with the book on the desk, because it's
too blurry. The only thing I can do is read a book on a bed, which,
ironically is how I got myopia in the first place, that, and... not
having a window.

Also, I have affirmed that almost everyone in 11th grade says that
their doctor tells them not to wear glasses all the time or else it
will get worse. These are the low myopes. There are some people,
however, who wear glasses all the time.

So why do some people wear glasses all the time and so people wear them
not all the time? The answer? It all depends on what their doctor
told them.

And think about it anyway, if the doctors admit that too much glasses
wearing is bad, then why won't they admit that a little glasses wearing
is bad, and that any glasses use at all is bad. Glasses are, afterall,
homeopathic.

It all depends on what your doctor tells you. When you first get your
glasses you say that it hurts and then they say, you'll get used to it.
You take this on as a homework assignment and then you get used to it.
Then you wear it all the time, because the doctor implied that you
should be able to, if you work hard enough, by which I mean making your
eyes working hard enough.

I have never had a doctor tell me that wearing glasses all the time
would be detrimental. I have never been that lucky. It seems like all
the people with severe myopia wear glasses all the time, while the
people with light myopia don't.

Also, if glasses don't hurt the eyes, then what is that great pain
caused by accomodation when you try them on? What exactly is happening
there?

 

Do as Dr. G says. You cannot think your way out of myopia. It will
not kill you.

You need to grow up a little (16 is very young) and accept that you can
be helped by contact lens or better fitting glasses. In a few years,
you will have your own means of income and not have to rely on your
parents. I started wearing glasses at 7 and ended up -10. You can
and will live a full and productive life. I was not ugly either.

 

You don't think you can get a job because you are myopic? Good grief
man. How do you think the rest of the world copes?

Many of your American peers will be fat... that's far more revolting
to look at than a pair of glasses.

Tom

 

Funny how homo sapiens survived as a species. We're not particularly
strong, we're not particularly fast, but we are clever.

Maybe most of the 11th graders in your class go to the same eccentric
eye doctor.

I've worn glasses all the time since age 7 years, and I read alot, too
(or at least I did as a kid). I never got worse than -4.00. I am now
-3.25.

I never had any pain from accommodation when I wore eyeglasses.
Perhaps there is something wrong with your particular
accommodative/convergence system. I seldom, if ever, hear that
complaint from my patients.

Now, it looks to me like you have cobbled together some anecdotal
information combined with just plain bad information. If you would
spend more time doing scientific research instead of internet surfing,
I think you can begin to get the picture, which is that high myopia
tends to be hereditary, and that reading makes some myopes worse at
different rates. However, the conclusion from most scientists who make
their careers out of studying this problem is that there is
insufficient evidence about what causes myopia to warrant any change in
the philosophy about prescribing eyeglasses.

DrG

 

Those sites are selling snake oil. There have always been snake oil
salesmen.

You should get to know other people who are -10 myopes. Why not start
a NG for 10 diopter myopes?

DrG

 

You haven't been visiting Otis' website, now, have you? Is that where
you have gotten the notion that axial myopia is reversible?

DrG

 

Dear "G",

If he had read my site he would have seen the words,
potential vision clearing -- from 20/70 to pass the
legal driving standard.

But I NEVER use the term "axial myopia" because
the measurement you make is a relative measurement
of refractive state.

For very low values of refractive status, I would
suggest just using that term, and suggest
you are "guessing" to determine if
a refarctive state of -1/2 dipoters (20/40)
is "axial" or "muscle spam", or "corneal"
or any other words you might wish
to use.

Refractive state, using a Snellen and
a trial lens kit is sufficient. The
rest is your "spin" from your
concept that the natural
eye is a frozen box camera.

As a "pardigm", yes it does
make sense -- in a limited
manner.

But the "dynamic eye" paradigm
makes more sense -- when the natural
eye is seen in broad perspective.



Best,

Otis

 

I know you can read, and so if you can read, please quote me chapter
and verse where I stated that the eye was a frozen box camera, or is
that you just making up things as usual? Lot's of faulty logic in your
posts.

DrG

 

Lest we forget: if it weren't for the *faulty* logic, a
BestOtisEngineer post would have *no* logic at all.

A medium like the Internet is a veritable petri dish for a guy like
Otis. In a face-to-face debate, he might be forced to (dare I say?)
answer our questions.....

 

Dear G,

As soon as you take a refractive
measurement (relative)
and claim that it is a "length"
you must make an un-proven
assumption -- that the eye
is a box-camera.

With out that assumption,
you can not state a length.

Perhaps you do not understand
the meaning of the word
"refractive state", and
work do determine if
the natural eye is dynamic
using basic concepts
of the dynamic eye.

You also insist that,
on the basis of "input"
versus "output" testing
that a population of
nature eyes will not
change their refractive
state in the direction
and approzimate magnitued
of thee applied minus lens.

Only a froze box-camera
WOULD NOT so change.;

Your insistance that there
is no relationship between
the refractive state of the
natural eye -- and
it proven behavior
is good proof of your acceptance
of a concept that has never
been proven.

Thus you deny every fact
you do not like -- and
that is a function of your
(professional) bias.

The fact that other ODs,
professionally trained as
you are -- profoundly
disagree with you on that
scientifc point should
give you (and others) pause
about your concept of the eye.
And I refer you to:

www.chinamyopia.org

If you doubt this concept
of the "dynamic eye" (and
true prevention) as the
second opinion.

Truly a techincal-scientific argument,
and NOT a "medical" argument
about objective scientifc facts
concerning the dynamic behavior
of the natural eye.

The words you are using are
the problem -- not the facts
themselves.


Best,

Otis

 

Otis, your cover is blown.

DrG

 

Beauty is very relative. Have you watched that cyber movie - what was thast
name - where the ugly guy married the ugly princess in the end... hey, I
mean the movie with the donkey, you will know it. Was it an Ork? I have
forgotten. Bad memory. The one with those ears - oh, you will surely know.

Hm... who says that all popular kids are good-looking? YOU think they are,
while others might think YOU are good-looking. What are "ugly" people? I
really cannot say there are such people. I for my part have found out that
it does not mean much to be good-looking. It is your mind and heart that is
important.

So and if you have to wear these glasses - why not simply stand behind it?
You are not your glasses, are you? If people just see your glasses, they are
not worth to be seen by you.

Head up, and get a bulb.

=O



Ask the others if they do not feel naked without glasses.

Or try the contacts again, maybe a different sort. I am also sure that you
could find out your prescription. Maybe you just go there where you got your
glasses from and ask there. Hey, you are 16!

Oh, but do not remind me... it was a terrible age for me. I always was in
love and had heartache, because I fell in love with those who were not
interested in me while others wanted to date me, but I did not want to go
out with them... It was a terrible time, really. But it became better when I
was a little older. Much better.

Peace,

~ vera ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

The most useful thing I got from posting this is learning about a bunch
of sites of where to get glasses

 

The thing is that if someone reading this knows enough to understand
what Otis is saying, they also know enough to see the flaws in his
reasoning. If they don't, then they won't understand the rebuttal,
either, which makes the reply superfluous.

DrG

 

Otis, How can you not know? I am shocked!! You actually do not know that
axial length can be measured. I must now assume that you think that every
time an increase in myopic refraction is measured, we assume its an increase
in axial length. Well Otis, axial length has been measured, it has been
documented. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Yeah, right (sarcasm intended)

But you May insist without proof
We need proof to offer the "second opinion" You insist that patients have
the right to the second opinion and I will agree if you can prove it. Its so
easy Otis, your job will be done, Just SHOW us proof Otis. But you can't.

I love your logic.

Cut the crap.

All right. Name them, together with their qualifications please, but again
you won't

Where are the objective facts, show us. Bet you can't

Well if the facts speak for themselves, stick to the facts. In science and
medicine, words have to precisely defined. I can understand your confusion.

Best

Roland Izaac

 

Let me make this clear. It is not accomodative pain. But there is a
great amount of pain associated with trying on glasses. There is more
pain the stronger the glasses are. I'm just wondering, if they fully
correct your eyes, then there should be no pain at all right?

 

If beauty is so relative, then why does everyone call me ugly?

Think about it, define popularity. Popularity is something that you
want. If you see a member of the opposite sex that you want, but
cannot get, they automatically become popular. You can look at a
person and determine whether they are popular or not.

Why don't you get an ugly girl and see how popular she becomes? The
guys won't want to have anything to do with her.

Also, the movie you're talking about, "Shrek", they looked like black
people. Giant foreheads, giant noses.

If you think about it black people are the ugliest people. Skin
complexion represents about 50% of beauty. The rest is facial
structure. Just face it, for some reason dark skin is ugly and looks
like dirt.

And why don't I wear contacts? I told you my grandma called me ugly in
some language that I don't understand. And people say I look angry and
call me ugly even when I wear contacts. In fact they make fun of me
more, scoffing at the fact that I'm trying to improve my vision. Just
today someone kept talking about my eyes, and how giant they are. Do
you know what caused this? Glasses. That's right.

And to wooly, wooly ... look there are some people who wear glasses and
don't have severe myopia and are goodlooking. But most people are
really ugly and put on glasses and get even uglier. I guess you could
put me in this category. If I never wore glasses, I would look
slightly better, I would save myself a lot of embarrassment from
walking up to the board. Blah blah blah...

I'm starting to think that glasses are a byproduct of civilization.
It's not normal to have no windows, and then get glasses and make it
worse infinitely. And no one except me sees this as a serious problem,
while the rest of us don't give a damn. I just wish I could have gone
back in time, and gave myself a chance to be 20/20.

But only in China do they prevent myopia. I guess when nations are
civilized and the public is uneducated about the eye, it is inevitable
for them to prevent myopia. When eye doctors just want to make more
money, it's disgusting. My question again is why the glasses hurt so
much to break into...

 

OK. You say they prevent myopia in China? Well, what about his
article:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Myopia is the most common physical deficiency in the Chinese school age
children and youth. The incidence of myopia are 20.6%, 49.8%, and 65.0%
in the primary school, junior middle school and senior middle school
students, respectively. Moreover, the incidence of myopia still shows a
generally rising tendency, especially in the school girls and
especially among the rural populations. (e.g., it rose from 10.4% to
11.3% in the primary school boys and from 14.4% to 15.7% in the primary
school girls, and it rose from 37.9% to 44.6%, and from 59.29% to 64%
in the junior and senior middle school girls respectively, during the
1985-1995 period). The incidence of myopia is even as high as 76.74% in
the college students, and has risen in the last ten years from 63.9% to
71.7% and from 67.2% to 77.6% in the males and females, respectively.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

It doesn't look they are doing such a great job of preventing myopia in
China.

DrG

 

Hey, that is a good sign.

Good for her. All these guys would only want to have to do with her because
she is beautiful??? They would not ask about her soul.

Shrek! Yes. That was the name I was looking for. I did not see any black
people in them.

Indeed, the most beautiful woman I have ever seen in my life was black. I am
not gay at all, but I stood there when she passed along, and simply wanted
to tell her how beautiful she was. I have never seen such a beautiful woman
again. But id does not say much about the happiness of people. Beautiful
people can be very depressive, too. And, as you said, what is beauty anyway?

Oh no! That is absolutely wrong to say - see above.

No, it does not. Why should western white people sunbathe all the time in
summer just to get tanned if that was the case?

Oh really? I have always thought that glasses for short-sighted people make
the eyes look much smaller, not bigger. Hey, you must really have some
special glasses there, right?

So it is not the glasses, but how you feel in general?

Be comforted, if people call you ugly, you are surely NOT! One does not tell
people who one thinks to be ugly that they are. I think you might have a
problem which most teenagers have. You just THINK you are ugly. And others
agree - so you are not.

Look, that is me with glasses:



or with contacts, you see:



But you say you look angry -> -> -> that's it, maybe. You do not like
yourself, so you look angry. Others do not want much of you because of that,
maybe. If you try to forget your glases for a week... maybe things
change...???? Why not try it out? Just have a look at the other people and
think how funny they look without glasses. Paint them some imaginary, and
you might smile at them. Just watch what happens.

I do not think you are ugly. Nonononono. You are only not self-conscious.

Okay, but you can't, but you can look into the future where people will be
able to operate such things easily. Everything will be fine one day, you
will see.

Why do you keep up yourself with things you cannot change? Why not see what
you can really do to solve this problem??? You can do it. You are old
enough.

You see, everybody has a weak spot. Everybody. You can see badly, others may
not feel good for other reasons.

Have you ever thought of meeting other people who have myopia like you? Why
do you not start a meeting with others? You could tell each other how very
ugly you are.

[No, you are a sweetheart, and surely not ugly. Best proof: They tell you!
]

Peace,

~ vera ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Now maybe you really wrote this, and maybe you didn't. But if you did...

So I was right the first time I read a post from you. You are nuts.

Crazy.

Lunatic.

Psychotic.

Give it up. Crawl back into alt.suicide.whatever and stay there. rot
there.

The rest of you guys on s.m.v.: stop cross posting to alt.whatever.
You are polluting the environment. Go back and check all your posts to
this group and see where else your posts have gone.

Yuk.

w.stacy, o.d.