When I ask the question, "...what would happen
if I place a -3 diopter lens on the fundamental eye,
EXACTLY what will happen."

I expect an exact scientific answer, to wit, either
the natural eye will change its refracitve STATE
by -2 diopters in six months -- or it will not.

I do not beat around the bush on this question,
or its answer.

But here is the response you will get from the
"medical mind".

====================

DrLeukomaOD>  Fundamental eye?  Fundamental B.S.
Nobody puts a -3 diopter lens on a
+4.3 diopter eye except on primates
in a laboratory environment.

====================

If you wish exact scientific truth, then that
is NOT the right answer.

If your goal is to determine if the fundamental
eye is DYNAMIC with respect to its accommodation
system, then you find this out by
INTENTIONALLY changing the power of the
accommodation system with a -3 diopter lens,
and verifying the change in refractive
state.

I do not take kindly of some person or
OD like "optometry-sucks" doctors telling
me what the "facts" are.

Here is the SCIENTIFIC reference.  Make your
own judgment.

==================

Dear Bre,

Subject: Longsight "correction".

otis> I do not know what you interests are -- but here is
what happens when you place a -3 diopter lens
on a population of natural eyes that have
a positive refractive STATE (i.e., technically
"long-sighted").

http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/FundEye.html

There is a lot of bias about the behavior of the natural
eye -- so I always stick to "just" the scientific
facts.

You should also define "long-sighted" in better terms.

Second-opinion best,

Otis

Re: re-imbursement rates (from plans for a
refractive STATE check -- about $40 in the plans)
The checks a matter of looking for a MEDICAL issue.

From:  Optometry Sucks Owner


Almost all the vision plans pay in that range. Look at cole,
spectera, block, davis, avesis, eyemed etc. VSP is the only half
decent plan.

This is why optometrists are encouraged to do medical
billing, the reimbursements are much higher.

The problem with medical billing for most optometrists is that
routine eye exams including refraction are not considered billable
under medical plans.

The patient must have a medical problem. Myopia, hyperopia or
presbyopia is not a medical diagnosis.

=============

I would also add -- that any true RECOVERY (i.e.,
Snellen-clearing) is not covered.  For that reason
it is not suggested or included in ANY PLAN.

This should explain why these ODs consider it,
"not MY responsibility".

But that returns the issue to you.

Otis

Dear Prevention-minded freinds,

I have NO PROBLEM with an OD who, after a $39 exam -- and
a verified refractive STATE of -1 diopter (about 20/50) -- discusing
vision-clearing with me -- using the plus.

The new "reality" is that the OD is required to give you
his written "prescription".  You can take this prescription
and "fill" it any where you wish.  Thus the $39 covers
looking for medical problem (that they report to you), and
that is valuable, and a measurement of your refractive STATE.
Thus, you can fill your prescription on the "net", for
about $15 if you wish.

I am willing to pay a man for his PROFESSIONAL TIME.  But
I DO EXPECT HIM to describe plus-prevention, and
send me to supportive web-sites that explain the
necessity of it -- and the SCIENCE behind it.

If he considers "plus-prevention" un-ethical, then
that forces me to consider it "ethical" to take
responsibility to clear my vision myself -- since
he will be of no help in that regard.

Here is the discussion.

Otis

++++++++++++++++

Subject:  Optometry has run it's course and is clearly on a downward
slide.

Gone is the heyday of $500 contact lenses and $400 glasses only
available at your local ODs shop. We have a super-surplus of
eyecare providers and optical sellers.

I am a successful private practitioner, with a nice office, making
good money and I have good patients. I'm a fellow of the Academy and
you've seen my articles in the journals. But the reality is that
Optometry was built on selling eyeware.

Still today, it's the majority of most
ODs income and this has been taken away from them by big stores.
Not necessarily a bad thing for the public but devastating to ODs.
Same thing happned to mom-n-pop hardware stores, pharmacies, photo
stores and the like.

What most private ODs have is the leftovers from OMDs and Walmart.
And this number of patients is dwindling fast.

Hell, I'm a private OD and I'd absolutely go to Walmart to get my
eyes checked if I wasn't in this field. $40 for the exam, dirt
cheap glasses and my wife and kids can shop while I wait. If the
store doc finds anything out of the ordinary, I'll go see an OMD.

Not meaning to discourage anyone. But if you think your going to run
a neurosurgeon-like office in 10 years with people demanding your
high-priced services, your probably in for a big surprise. And VT
and low vision are a joke. You WILL NOT make a living doing this.

And finally, the cold hard fact: Most of what ODs do can be done by
a well-trained tech in the Ophthalmologist's office.

The oversupply has ruined Optometry and there is nothing we can do
about it at this point. Meanwhile, I have to wait almost 3 months to
get in to see my dental hygenist for a routine cleaning.

===============

Comment:

And finally, the cold hard fact: Most of what ODs do can be done by
a well-trained tech in the Ophthalmologist's office.

Otis>  And, truth be known, a person with good techical
knowledge could do the same thing the office-tech does
with a $190 trial-lens kit.  Probably more accurately
to boot.

Subject:  Words can have two meanings.

I prefer EXACT words with EXACT meanings.

"Therapy" can mean ANYTHING -- as discussed below:

=========

Vision Therapy


Don't treat VT as a snake oil.

I would like to see a wide scale experiment, similar to the
diabetic/glacoma studies, to see if reading score improvements can be
statistically proven.

Maybe start a program in elem school classes with 5 minutes of
saccades/accom rock at the start of every school day. Then compare
reading scores on a regular basis with scores from scores without the
VT program.

Tom Byers, O.D.

==============

This is why I dislike the words, "Vision Therapy".

To me, Vision-Clearing is EXACT.  That means
that the person has a right to expect
results. I mean that if a person has
a visual acuity of 20/70, and wishes
to clear his vision, then he has
a right to expect his vision to "clear"
to pass the DMV test.

Calling "reading better" vision therapy
is nuts.

The GOALS of the person must be understood.

If he expects his naked eye vision to clear,
then this is NOT what is being offered
as "vision therapy".

Otis

For me, the entire PURPOSE of vision-therapy, is that
I get my naked-eye vision BACK.

I would ACCEPT HELP from a PREVENTION-MINDED OD -- for
that purpose.  But there needs to be complete
HONESTY about what is possible, what the person's
goals are, and that this PREVENTION must ALWAYS
start before the minus.

Maybe that is too much to ask of a man who has
payed $160,000.00 and 4 years of his life -- to
ONLY over-prescribe a minus lens.

If that is the case, then the person himself
must be advised of this "attitude".

Here is some more discussion of these "ethics".

Remember I am NEVER anti-optometry.  I am
PRO-person -- i.e., his personal right to
an informed choice about vision-therapy.

Otis

++++++++++



Subject:   [optometrysucks] Ethics and Optometry


I enjoy trying to offer some solutions we've found to the complaints
voiced in this group.

Just one piece of input on comments re: symptomless binocular vision
problems.  If you are looking for asthenopic complaints, you might
think there are no symptoms.  But many binocular vision problems
manifest as effects on performance and comprehension at school and on
the job.  If you ask about those complaints on a full history form,
you will find many problems that can be dealt with via special
purpose lenses, VT and fine-tuned Rxs.

Check out the literature at covd.org and oep.org.  There is a growing
body of research, including medical double blind studies, that
support the efficacy of vision therapy.  If you have questions about
near vision testing and Rxing, get Martin Birnbaum's book on
nearpoint vision problems from Butterworth.  The same publisher
produces the excellent book on VT by Leonard Press.  The OEP has low
cost regional courses and COVD has an intensive new practitioner
series each year at their meeting, this year near St. Petersburg, FL
in October.

Some new VT oriented ODs have trouble getting it going, but there's
help for that as well.  OEP publishes a book on Building The Dynamic
Vision Therapy Practice that can be helpful and there are many
volumes on various binocular vision problems and how to do VT.

I have permanently posted an adult Hx form on the download page of my
website that you may use.  The questions on the back may seem
occupation-related, but in fact, they reveal many nearpoint and
binocular vision problems and also point to additional Rxs that the
patient might really appreciate.

Make more money doing behavioral/developmental optometry?  Sure.  But
only because patients need it and want it once they are certain of
the link between their experience and the binocular visual
limitations.

Is it ethical to recommend everything that might help the patient and
then leave the choice up to them?  Or is it more ethical to limit
your recommendations to what you think they might actually buy?

Behavioral and VT docs are extremely generous with information and
freely help for any OD new to the field.

Thomas Lecoq

=================

optometrysucks <optometrysucks@...> wrote:

The ethical problems confronting optometry are nothing compared to
what goes on in medicine. I work next to an ophthalmologist who will
not look at you unless he can do surgery. He will ignore any kind of
eye disease unless he can cut it to fix it. He's a good surgeon,
though.

see

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18722644/

There are too many health practitioners in general. As the pie gets
smaller many of us will resort to unethical or criminal behavior to
survive. Sad, but true.

Subject:  Patient opinion of their glasses and contacts.

I like to ask my patients on their yearly exam how their glasses and
contacts worked out.

I must say a good thirty percent are not happy
with the glasses and a good fifty percent don't wear their contacts
anymore.

It's interesting they don't blame me for their overpriced
crappy glasses. (we all sell the same stuff at the same price after
doing the same exam for the same insurance)

Why do they complain?

Most people hate progressives, but they feel they have no option but
to continue wearing them.

Progressives are blurry in the distance,
blurry to the sides and blurry at near. They work out for people who
really don't pay attention to the world around them. The progressives
industry has dictated to doctors and opticians to continue pushing
this shoddy product on consumers because it is profitable to sell.

Contacts are just uncomfortable and annoying to wear unless you're a
15 year old girl getting your first pair of colored contacts. I ask
the patients why they don't come back to let me know about their
problems?

They tell me insurance covers an exam every year or two so
they might as well wait until their next exam. They look at it like
getting a bad haircut. "Let's wait till it grows back and try again".

The only folks who really make demands and complain are the $25 exam
medicaid patients. They want gucci glasses, colored contacts all for
free. " Hey world, I've got medicaid, I deserve nothing but the best"
Absoluteley incredible.

Do yourself a favor: don't go to optometry school and waste your life
dealing with this inane bullsh*t.

I would love to ramble on more, but I need to see my next pain in the
ass patient.

Optometry Sucks Owner

Dear Prevention-minded friends,

Subject: Do you think of yourself as a "Patient"?

The "Patient" is treated like a "bump on the log".

An entity that knows no reason or logic.

I personally prefer science, engineering and the
facts.

I prefer to look at the facts myself and determine
a course of action that, while difficult, COULD BE
SUCCESSFUL FOR MYSELF.

This DOES NOT INCLUDE being part of this
group of "patients" as described below.

If you think that "prevention" can be "worked into"
this situation as described below -- then
you are "kidding" yourself.

But equally, a man whose "mind" is saturated with
these issues -- will have "no time" for ANY DISCUSSION
OF ANY PREVENTION.

Thus TRUE PREVENTION can never be part of a
doctor-patient process.

Do not expects it.

This does not mean that plus-prevention is IMPOSSIBLE -- as
they like to insist -- it just means that you
will have to do it yourself under YOUR control.

Best,

Otis

+++++++++++++++

Subject:  Why Optometry Sucks.


Oh, well I don't really have any magic solution.
I can tell you the things that have gotten to me.

1) Rude patients- coming in late, talking on cell phones, letting
their wild kids run crazy.

2)Patients that no-show after repeated confirmation calls and there
is nothing we can do about it. The glaucoma OMD puts his no-show
pts at the end of a 3 months wait if they don't show. If they no-
show 2 times, they are dropped completely. ODs can't really do
that. You can charge a no-show fee, but all the pt will do is go to
one of the other 50 ODs in town, no questions asked.

3)Continual attempts to decrease reimbursements from insurance
companies.

4) Refusal of some bigger insurance plans to let ODs on their panel.
Doesn't matter how much patients want to see you, if your not on
their plan, they will go elsewhere (maybe a few will stay with you).

5) State and national optometric societies marching to the beat of
their own little drums. They frequently emphasize ridiculous things
that benefit very few real practicing ODs. I know of a few docs
that got walked all over when they tried to do something productive
with the AOA.

6) The continual need to do a 'dog and pony' show for patients. It's
not enough to be adequate as an OD, you have to be extraordinary all
the time. You have to be better than other doctors who can be late
all the time, have sparse office hours, treat patients like dirt,
automatically garner referral from other MDs just by default.

7) Seeing 2 for 1, 50% off, free exam with glasses
purchase....etc....ads in my local Sunday newspaper every week along
with giant ad inserts from Pearle, Lenscrafters, Visionworks,
Walmart, Sams etc......

8) The constant backstabbing of ODs toward their colleagues. The
jealously is overwhelming in this field (probably directly relating
to the oversupply).

9) An increasing number of patients that will buy glasses or
contacts only to call back a week later demanding their money back
because (take your pick) their spouse didn't like the color, they
found it cheaper elsewhere, they want to you just write them an Rx
for Freshlook lenses because their friend has some.

10) Patients that refuse to pay their $20 copay because they think
they don't have to.

11) Insurance companies that lie to you on the phone and tell you
the patient is covered and then sending you an EOB saying they did
not have coverage. Insurance companies have NO RULES. They do
whatever they want.

12) PCPs that will almost never think of sending their patient to an
OD that has an appt available tomorrow but instead will sched them
with an OMD that has to wait 2 months.

13) ODs that run optical shops with a little exam room in the back
making # 12 above more of a reality.

14) Seeing so many ODs refer every little red eye or dot hemorrhage
out to an OMD prematurely.

15) Beauty shops and flea markets that can sell contact lenses
without prosecution.

16) Patients that make it their life duty to hassle the doctors
office. ODs have to deal with much psychology. Patients saying
their glasses don't fit and then showing you by violently slinging
their head forward so that their glasses slide off. Of course, they
really just regret buying the glasses and want their money back.

17) Lenscrafters who has an ad campaign telling patients to buy
glasses and bring them back for a full refund anytime within 30 days.

18) Slow insurance reimbursements and patients don't care that it is
a contract between them and their insurance company. They see it as
YOUR problem. And it is because they will just go to the next OD on
the list if you piss them off.

19) Never knowing what kind of personality you will encounter when
you enter the exam room. I've had the sweetest looking old ladies
raise hell when it came time to pay the bill.

20) People trying to milk the system. From welfare to veterans
benefit to patients wanting to fake a visual field defect to get
Medicare to pay for lid surgery.

These just off the top of my head. Certainly not limited to
optometry but do beat you down over time. I can honestly say that I
have come to dislike humans more than before I entered optometry. I
see and do alot of good. But I also see the worst in some people.

TomEyeMan OD

Dear prevention-minded friends,

I support SUCCESSFUL preventive methods.  That
means you START with the preventive method
BEFORE you begin wearing that minus lens.

I more support the PLUS for prevention, because
it is easier.  But here is the Bates method
(used before the minus) and the successful results.

This DOES require motivation.  Without it -- success
is IMPOSSIBLE.

Dr. Bates commentary below. Click on:


http://central-fixation.com/batesmed/myopiaprevention.htm

Public School No. 46, W. A. Boylan, principal.

E. 6A., J. Hiesel. T., 27
D., 27
I., 27
N., 25
W.,  0

  February, 1913. April, 1913. June, 1913.

  R. L. R. L. R. L.

John D. ...... 20/100 20/50 20/50 20/40 20/20 20/20
Sanford G. ... 20/50 27/70 20/30 20/40 20/15 20/20

Further commentary:

All the principals and all the teachers, in the beginning, were
sceptical. After they used the method and investigated the results in
the class rooms, they became convinced that the use of the memorized
Snellen card improved the vision of the school children. They do not
understand it.

CONCLUSIONS.

1. All investigators, I believe, have published that previous efforts
to lessen defective vision or prevent myopia in schools have failed.

2. One hundred and twenty one teachers in the schools of New York
city have lessened appreciably the number of pupils with defective
vision. Note in the accompanying records that over 1000 pupils with
defective sight obtained normal vision in both eyes.

3. Thirty-two teachers prevented the vision of all their pupils from
becoming worse.

4. Myopia was prevented by teachers.

938 St Nicholas Ave.

===========

In fact, IF the person has the motivation and
the gumption to MAKE THESE MEASUREMENTS HIMSELF,
then prevention (and some recovery) MIGHT be
possible.

Otis

Subect:  Feel trapped in an over-prescribed minus lens.

Here is an optometrist who feels the same way about optometry!

(Note the personal attacks and foul language.  This
seems to be the "norm" for this profession -- from
my long personal experience with these majority-opinion
ODs.  OSB)


Even though it has been many months since I posted my story on here,
I'm still getting a fair amount of email about it. Some of it is
supportive, and I continue to get the occasional story of another OD
who also left the profession. Unfortunately, a number of them are
also quite hostile, and usually degenerate into name calling. I
can't quite figure out why this is. I've been called all kinds of
things including but not limited to: "Lazy" "Asshole" "Fvcking
asshole" "Jerk" "Fvcking jerk" and "Commercial apologist" (?!?!?)
That last one really stung. Lol.

Let me try (once again) to reiterate a few things for people out
there. Once again, this is only my opinion, based on my
experience. You can take it for what it's worth.

1) I left for a wide range of reasons. The MAIN reason was my
inability to be admitted onto insurance panels. I know there are
areas of the country where this is not a problem, and some of those
doctors post here. That's great. Students should consider
practicing in those areas of the country unless they want to spin
dials all day and pray to God that every patient wants to buy
transitions and Acuvues from them.

2) I made decent money. As an OD, you will never starve. You will
not default on your student loans. I make less money now (though
not much less) in my new career than I did in my old.

3) Contrary to what the trade publications will tell you, there
is not a huge unmet demand for Low Vision, or RGP bitoric bifocal
lenses that you can charge hundreds of dollars for, I worked at a
practice that was owned by a diplomate of the AOA contact lens
section, and this guy had years of experience with "tough" cases and
was well known in the community. We saw one of these patients MAYBE
every three months.


4) The vast majority of old doctors out there will screw you.
Do not even bother trying to find a practice to buy from an old
guy. In theory, this is the way to go, because it would be nice to
hit the ground running, but my experience was that most old guys
simply want to sell you their tired old offices for much more than
it's actually worth. I would recommend that people who want to go
into private practice to open cold. While initially that may be
tougher, in the long run you can set up the office the way you want,
with the furnishing and equipment that you want, with the staff that
you want, and practice the way that you want. I'm sure that Drs
Langford and Chudner, who post on here frequently would disagree
because I understand that they are doing quite well for themselves
after having purchased another ODs office. That's fantastic.
Unfortunately, it was not my experience.

5) Ultimately, I feel that the independent solo OD is doomed.
Fact is that most revenue in most private offices come from
retailing optical product, and the fact is that large chain
retailers can do it better, faster, and cheaper than the private
OD. That's why you don't see independent pharmacies, hardware
stores, or funeral homes very much any more. Regrettably, I feel
that the future of optometry is much like pharmacy. Working retail
hours in retail locations.

6) Another reason why I feel that the independent solo
practitioner is doomed is because of insurance. This may seem
contradictory in light of the fact that I left because I couldn't
get onto insurance panels, but in actuality, that inability turned
out to be a blessing in disguise. And this is why I feel that way.
Unfortunately, as an OD (and this applies to the vast majority of
the medical field) you really have very limited control over your
income. You will take what the insurance company deems to give you
and you will like it. And if VSP decided tomorrow that they are
cutting reimbursement by 30%, well, that's just tough titties for
you isn't it? If medicare decides to bundle all those tests into
one global fee for "glaucoma evaluation" and slash the reimbursement
by 70%, well that's just tough titties for you isn't it? And even
though optometry has expanded its scope of practice substantially,
it is still a fact that number of billable procedures that we can
perform is very very low. We have the array of glaucoma tests,
foreign body removals, punctal plugs, and office visits. That's
about it. So (excluding optical) the only practical way to increase
revenue is to just see more patients. And from a purely business
perspective that doesn't seem to me like a good situation. Is there
any other small business out there where anyone other than the
business owner sets the fees? I can't think of any other than the
health care field.

And yes, I did do a lot of research before I entered the field. I
decided that this is what I wanted to do when I was 14 years old,
and I worked for numerous ODs throughout high school, and college.
I think two big things happened from the time I entered school to
the time I graduated and both of my former OD employers agree with
this:

1) The huge explosion in disposable contact lenses which made
contact lenses so much safer, easier to fit, drove down already
pathetically low fitting fees, and also made them attractive to bulk
retailers.
2) The huge expansion of internet commerce also drove down
reimbursement for materials and was also attractive to bulk
retailers.

These two things essentially decimated contact lenses and contact
lens related revenue for the majority of practices out there. The
days of the $400 yearly contact lens that the patients loses once or
twice a year and has to replace through your office are OVER.

Because of the limitation in procedures, even when I was able to
work in practices that were on plans, I ultimately came to find
optometry very boring. The vast majority of private practice is
increasing minus on teenagers, and increasing adds on presbyopes.
Treating pink eyes, and removing foreign bodies also gets very dull
over time. The vast majority of cases in optometric practices are
just not that challenging. How much skill does it take to put a
2.00 diopter acuvue on a 2.00 diopter myope, or to prescribe FML for
a keratitis? (Please spare me all the details of the brain tumor
and RD patients you have out there. That's why I said the vast
majority.)

And this is why I never understood why there is so much denigration
directed at commercial docs from private ones. In commercial
practice as in private, you mostly increase minus on teenagers, and
increase adds on presbyopes. In fact, because I sometimes worked
weekends in commercial practice, I got to see MORE interesting cases
there because I got all the weekend "emergencies" and got all the
sick patients who had no insurance.

I also don't get the denigration because so many private offices are
strip mall optical locations with an exam lane in the back. I will
agree that commercial practice doesn't usually provide the
best "image." But right before I left, I had an offer to buy an
office that was in a strip mall next to a nail salon on one side,
and a pizzeria on the other. When I talked to the doc on the phone,
he chastised me because I was working part time commercial at the
time and lamented the "image" I was portraying. Yet, here was his
office….an optical store with an exam lane in the back stocked with
equipment from the Eisenhower era. Is he projecting a "positive
image?" A colleague of mine practices in an urban area and he just
visited an office to interview for an associate position where the
space next to the ODs office was occupied by a store that sells
lingerie and sex toys on one side and a dollar mart on the other.

Can anyone honestly say that a Lenscrafters in an upscale mall is
less of a positive image than the ODs office next to the porn shop?
Cmon.

So please, who ever is sending me the hate mail, please stop it.

Sorry for the slightly rambling message. But ultimately, I just got
too frustrated, and too bored. That doesn't mean it can't be
rewarding for you. I have colleagues out there that regret going
into optometry and wish every day that they could get out but they
feel trapped. I know others who are so thrilled with the practice
of optometry that to them, it's almost like a drug. Hopefully, you
will all fall into the latter category.

=====

This Optometrist has departed from optometry.

Subject:  The typical exam costs about $39 to $100.
Here is the income from that exam for an OD.

How private practice optometry works:
Working 5 days per week 9-6.  Patients all day long.

Gross Income: $320,000
Cost of Goods: $72,000
Expenses: $156,000
Business debt: $32,000

Student loans: $12,000

Take home: $48,000 Before taxes

Forgot the AOA dues of $1,300 per year.

That's certainly worth four years of grad school and close to $400,000
in debt.

Not bad for a business that has no future, has no growth potential, is
not scalable, is controlled by third parties and the government and
you can never take any time off.

Well, at least I'm called doctor.

Owner, Optometry Sucks

PrevTher.txt

Subject:  Plus-prevention is NOT "therapy".

Re:  These ODs explain why then can not and will not offer
	 plus-prevention.  Which leaves little choice but that YOU
	 figure out how to do it yourself - under YOUR control.

      If you determine that you prefer to do it under YOUR control
- then the effort costs almost nothing.

      But it DOES take strong personal resolve to do it.  And long
persistence.

From Optometry-Sucks:


Re:  [optometrysucks] Re:  optometry student


      There are too many ODs who derive the majority of their
income from the sale of spectacle frames.  Some people have their
minds made up and don't wish them to be confused by facts.


Michael E.  Margaretten, O.D., F.A.A.O., F.C.O.V.D., F.A.C.O.P.

----- Original Message ----

To:  optometrysucks@yahoogroups.com

Subject:  [optometrysucks] Re: optometry student


      Vision therapy has been discussed on this group many times
before.  Essentially, except for a few limited cases, it is a scam
like many other pseudo medical therapies and treatments.  The
success of the practitioner is based upon one's ability to
practice among well to do people who are willing to pay thousands
of dollars for treatment that has no proof of effectiveness.  One
must be a salesman par excellence to convince someone that vision
therapy will help them.  Very few succeed in this area and almost
all of them are con artists.

=====================================

Thomas Lecoq wrote:

Hi,

      find a few doctors who are doing vision therapy.  Check it
out, if you like what they are doing, proceed, but make sure you
find a mentor or two to keep you from drifting down the track of
commercial optometry.  I am a consultant (for 2 decades and know
that getting through school is very rough.  If you do what your
instructors (most of them anyway) say, you might be better off in
arbitrage or other business activity.  It is not hard to elevate
yourself above the managed care mess, but you won't get much help
from your school.  They have to get you past the state boards to a
license.  What limits you impose on yourself are up to you.  Find
a mentor.  Check covd.org or oep.org and ask some of their members
how they like what they do.

Thomas Lecoq

================

bhorbal2 wrote:  Hello,

      I started optometry school about 2 months ago and must say
that it's not what I expected so far.  I've been thinking of what
to do with my future for a few weeks now.  I don't hate optometry
but I feel like it's not appealing to me like it once was.  I know
that it's hard work and that's the way it's supposed to be but I
feel like maybe it's not worth the amount of time and effort, not
to mention the huge $$ investment.  And I have a BS in biology and
nearly a 4.0 (Summa cum laude) to go along with it.  I wonder if
other opportunities might be worth a look.  Any thoughts?

Thanks

-BH

The actual FUNCTION of optometry, it to check for
any disease, and then find a minus lens that
gives good sharpness of vision.

That is what the patient expects -- and that
is indeed what he gets.

How much "training" does it take to do that.

Raphaelson explains:

===========

It was the latter part of December, 1899 in Dubuque, Iowa,
when I missed the train going westward, which resulted in my
taking the next train eastward to Chicago and getting an optical
diploma.

I missed the train and was soon transformed from a spectacle peddler
to a traveling Doctor of Optics.

It was in Chicago, in the early part of 1900, that I took a
course in optics at the northern Illinois College of Ophthalmology
and Otology. At this school an optical diploma could be obtained
either through correspondence or by attending class at the school.
There was no time limit.

The only requirement was to pass their examination. If you passed the
examination you got the diploma.

I decided to take an attendance course. I stayed there not quite
two months, passed the examination and got my diploma. The cost
was $25. I believe it was a good school.

During the time that I attended the optical school I had a
room downtown within walking distance of the school. I attended
each and every one of the lectures. I practiced with the
instruments and watched their method and technique in the fitting
of glasses.

I was ready to make use of my diploma.

After receiving my diploma, the first thing I did was to make
a connection with a first class optical house, the F. A. Hardy &
Co.

I got credit and made arrangements for them to send orders to
me or to my customers.

I brought a full sized trial case, suitable for traveling.

I bought a hand retinoscope and a battery retinoscope.

I also bought a battery ophthalmoscope.

I bought a stock of lenses and frames. I was ready for traveling or
office business.

Dr. J. Raphaelson

I feel we are losing sight of what the purpose of this group is. This
group is to let people know that the practice of optometry has changed
for most of us and to warn prospective students, before they spend
lots of money, to reconsider.

The point I am making is that going to optometry school will not give
you an edge. It will not make life easier for you or your family.
You will invest lots of time and money and see very poor results.

Years ago a doctor could open up shop and patients would come and you
could make good money. That's why people said you should go to
medical school or professional school and become a doctor. It was a
good lifestyle. In some ways becoming a professional insulated you
from competition. Today, you need to advertise, market, sell,
compete, push and steal to make a marginal living. The point is you
could do the same in any business or area of sales without going to
grad school.

My problem with optometry is that new students are being sold an
expensive bill of goods. I urge you to go out and speak to as many
practicing doctors as you can before wasting years and hundreds of
thousands of dollars. Go to seniordoc website and see what real
practicing ods are saying about the real world of optometry. Do not
have illusions.

Ignore organized optometry like the American Optometric Association
and all the other groups. They exist purely to perpetuate their own
existence. All the journals and magazines you read are only there to
sell stuff to optometrists.

Wake up and open your eyes. Do not go to optometry school unless you
want to teach in an optometry school and become part of the cynical
self perpetuating system.

On a personal note I am currently researching what to do with my
practice when I run out of money in 3 months. In case you are
wondering, I have a really nice office with a great staff. Too bad it
doesn't pay the bills. Private practice is just as bad if not worse
than corporate optometry. If you don't like to sleep at night go into
private practice.

Optometry Sucks -- Owner

Subject: Huge over-head costs to "practice" optometry.

Re: Given a knowledge in physics, it would take about
a month to teach a person (tech) the proper operation
of a trial-lens kit (Phoropter).  Thus, spending
eight years to learn how to do that -- seems like
an excessive waste of time to me.

It is true that a person taught how to clear a negative
refractive STATE for the natural eye -- will not be
able to detect "disease" -- but that is what
the 8 years are for.

Once any disease is ellimated (for that $80 exam), and
you have a negative refractive STATE of -1.0 diopter
(about 20/50) there is no reason why you can not
clear your vision yourself -- if you have the
motivation to do so.

This would not be "medicine" in any sense of the
word.  Just a logical assessment of the proven
behaver of the natural eye -- placed in a
long-term near environment for 3 to 4 years.

The Eskimo data proves this conclusively.

Obviously, and OD concerned with his $160,000 bill
for college -- and must get you through his
office in 10 minutes -- is not going to
tell you about prevention.

So you must figure this out for yourself.

Here are some remarks about this huge
over-head that is "modern" optometry.

Ask yourself this -- who is more concerned with
keeping your distant vision clear for life?

You or these "un-happy" ODs?  This should define
your priorities.  They are defining THEIR
priorities here.

From optometry-sucks:

=================


Thinking about Optometry school? Think again.

Don't flush four years of education and $160,000 of student loans
down the toilet.

Do Consider Optometry if you enjoy the following:

1. Working for Walmart, Sears, JC Penny, Costco or BJs

2. Like to work Weekends and evenings.

3. Like to look for a different job every 6 months.

4. Like to fight with political ophthalmology.

5. Like to pay back $1200 per month in student loans

6. Like to refer everything out to your local ophthalmologist.

7. Like to work in a career that has no future with a salary cap of
$40 per hour.

8. Like to call yourself doctor.

9. Like to join organized optometry associations, pay them huge
memebership fees so they send you ads for car rentals, credit cards
and life insurance at above market rates.

Owner, Optometry Sucks

Dear Prevention-minded friends,

Subject: Looking for accurate second-opinion information.

There are obviously "trolls" on the internet.

Here are some remarks about these "disinformation artists" on the
internet.

http://whale.to/a/newsgroups_h.html

AND:

http://whale.to/b/sweeney.html

Enjoy,

Otis

Dear Prevention-minded friend,

Subject: Separating an understanding of the eye's
dynamic behavior of the natural eye -- from the need to quick-fix
the public in 10 minutes.

(The Doc-in-Box MUST pay off those student-loans for
eight years in college.  That is the real "driver" for
him.)

I understand the political-pressure to conform to
an obsolete quick-fix theory. The theory -- that
the eye is not dynamic -- has failed in
terms of objective science. But that does not
"slow down" the quick-fix artists like PClar.

This site is designed to help you think for
yourself. An anlysis of objective SCIENTIFIC facts must
be part of that effort -- as well as an understanding of
the intellectual blindness of majority-opinion as
expressed by PClar.

Otis

==============

otis wrote:

Otis> PClar has a right to his OPINION, that a -3 diopter lens
has NO EFFECT on the refractive STATE of the
natural eye. Tragically, PClar's belief-system if false.

PClar> err-- Otis, Gwen's son does not have a -3.00D prescription.
Furthermore, the study that we know you are referring to is an old
old study from >20 years ago on MONKEYS. The study has been done on
humans, and it clearly shows that what I said is correct and that you
are wrong. Everytime bring up those studies and the conclusions and
ask you to comment you just shut up and go away for awhile until some
innocent person like Gwen asks a question and then you swoop down
with your bullshit again.

Otis> PClar likes to TRASH every professional and some layman
who DISAGREE WITH HIM.

PClar> well, I AM a professional with years of research and clinical
training in vision and years of experience seeing patients. And you
are.....an unemployed former engineer, or so you say.

PClar> Let Gwen or anyone else decide for themselves who to believe.

Otis> You will find optometrists who support the preventive plus
(and avoid the minus) for their own children. The fact that
they will commit their own children to these preventive
methods is a major vote-of-confidence for fundamental
change. See:

www.chinamyopia.org

PClar> No, you will NOT find optometrists who behave like you say
very often at all. You had to look all over to find some wacko guy
who lives in China to finally support your point of view. And when
you do claim some well known person supports you, and we happen to
talk to that person at a meeting, it all turns out to be lies! Otis--
you are an internet wacko that will probably be appearing in an MSNBC
Dateline episode regarding cyber-molesting very soon.

PClar>  Otis we are tired of you. You have no logical or scientific
leg to stand on.

[PClar totally ignores all scientific truth concerning
the dynamic behavior of the fundamental eye.  OSB]

PClar> You have no current research studies to support you and
when faced with the overwhelming truth you just fold and go silent
rather than reply. Why not do that again right now -- GO SILENT AGAIN
please.

Majority-opinion PClar

===============

Otis wrote this article on the second-opinion, and
the means of prevention:

http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/truthsee.html


Otis>  But Dr L-G also adds this statement:

DrLG>  Heh, heh. That website tells an interesting little story that
just happens to be untruthful. Otis and his ilk are living in the
past, talking about failed methods as if they actually work. Yes,
there are two camps: reality and fantasy.

DrG

===========

And I will add:

Heh, Hen, Heh,

Because some Doc-in-a-Box is so totally intellectually
blind about the natural eye's behavior, and LOVES
that over-prescribed minus lens -- you will lose
your distant vision PERMANENTLY.

Yes, DrG is very funny.

Sorry you lost your vision because of his ignorance
about the PROVEN behavior of the fundamental eye.

And the fact that optometry sucks.

Just one man's scientific opinion,

Otis

Subject:  You truly have to "wonder" about the
accuracy of any measurements made in an office -- in
10 minutes.

Here is a statement by "opomtetry sucks" owner.  At this
point, I think I could (with my own trial-lens kit) make
a far better measurement than this man could.  But to
be fair, I have much more time to make the measurement,
and can develop the AVERAGE of measurements over several
weeks.  There is no way that any OD (with money and
time constraints) can be that accurate.

============

For all of your big ivory tower talk I have yet to see one concrete
suggestion to Ods saddled by tons of debt and working in the mall for
peanuts.

Buy a private practice. Start a private practice. No one wants to
finance you. These practices are few and far between. The sellers
think their old shitty equipment is worth a fortune. Too bad the
banks and financing companies don't agree.

There are thousands of ODs in this situation. Lets hear some
practical real ideas for real people. I feel great that you and your
buddies are making a living and are in optometric Nirvana. New grads
with lots of debt do not have many options.

Its because of guys like you repeating the mantra that optometry is
great that so many of us end up in this situation. We are all excited
about finishing school then end up in the mall as a doc in the box for
low pay and long crappy hours after being unemployed for months.

Thats why I started this group. To warn young people and career
changers to stay away from this scam. Optometry school is way too
expensive to make a go of it. Better off do something else. If
you're that business savvy and have a few bucks, start another
business without all the school debt in addition. Many of the optical
places where I live are owned by opticians who pay OD's part time to
do whats better 1 or 2.

Thinking of optometry school? Think again and run the other way.

Optometry sucks big time.  (Owner of OS).

Subject: The "requirement" to qualify in optometry has
grown -- from "Part 2" description on MyopiaFree, to,
now, a huge investment in money and time.

Here is a statment by the "Optometry Sucks Owner".

Enjoy:

===================

Optometry is not a profession in that further study and personal
development do not lead to enhanced career options, more pay or
greater respect.

Success in Optometry is solely determined by how many patients you can
see in a pecific period of time to provide a basic level of service
which will make 99% of patients happy 99% of the time. One
optometrist is as good as the next. Sure, things will be missed Rx's
will be returned, but most of what we do is basic mindless work. the
only creative aspect being: how fast can you do it.

What can an optometrist do for his/her patients that will be perceived
as providing added value? color vision testing? who cares. binocular
vision testing ? who cares. Yes, some people need these tests but so
few need them as to make them meaningless.

In summary, if you like working weekends and evenings in the mall and
like paying back huge amounts of student debt, optometry is the career
for you.

If you decide to go into private practice, good luck trying to find
someone to finance your startup or practice acquisition. Banks and
financing companies have as much interest in optometrists as Saudis
have in freedom and democracy in the middle east.

================

Thus we are back to seeing "patients" at 6 per hour,
or 10 minutes per person.

This tends to lead to very fast operation of the
trial-lens combination (Phoropter).

You truly have to wonder about how accurate THAT
method can be -- done once every two years -- perhaps.

I often suggest that the person take more time
than 10 minutes -- but reading his own Snellen,
and checking his refractive STATE with his
own trial-lenses.

I truly believe that you should understand this
need for personal measurement -- with greater
accuracy you can provide.

Otis

Subject:  The "down" side of optometry.  Student-loan pay-back.

There is nothing worse than working 12 hour shifts in the mall doing
eye exams.

It gets even better when customers bring their glasses back and say
they can't see anything with the new glasses.

This "profession" sucks big time.

Keep paying back those school loans. remember all the great courses
on vision science, hundreds of hours on pharm, endless courses in
disease. What a bunch of bull to be a doc in the box.

Optometry Sucks -- Owner.

================

This man also talked about means to increase the
number of "visits" per hour -- from 6 to 8.

How much can you you "help" in 10 minutes?

Subject: Combat in the air -- combat on the ground.

Enjoy,

==============


Re: "icfine70": GOD HELP ME IF EVER I'M A PASSENGER IN A CRAFT
CAPTAINED BT YOU!

Doctorapk provided us with some very enlightening things about the
duties of pilots. You are correct on several issues regarding the
technicalities of flying; however, your diatribe reveals many gaps in
knowledge that any professional or formerly professional pilot would
not have written. Nevertheless, I'm not here to question your
credentials.

My credentials? I have over 2,000 hours in the KC-10 (the military
version of the DC-10). I have over 500 hours of combat time supporting
U.S. doctrine in Operation Southern Watch, Operation Enduring Freedom,
and Operation Iraqi Freedom. I was an Instructor pilot in the KC-10 at
McGuire AFB, NJ and am now an instructor pilot in the venerable T-1A
Jayhawk at Vance AFB, OK. I have over 2,500 hours of multi-engine
turbojet time plus another 500 or so hours civilian time.

My question to you is...what is your point? Are you trying to say that
it is not important for a pilot to see and avoid other aircraft simply
because I might have a TCAS on board? Are you trying to say that it is
not important for me to be able to clearly see the landing environment
on final approach? Would you fly on an airplane with a blind pilot
since he has all that high-tech equipment?

My life has been saved at least one time because I was actually
looking outside the windows and saw another aircraft and took evasive
action to avoid it (yes, in the KC-10...we were weighing in at
approximately 470,000 lbs at that time - light for the KC-10).
Apparently, he didn't think that it was important to be squawking 1200
on his transponder, or my TCAS would have picked him up.

Your comments about commercial flight being so automated and canned is
naive. This is not the truth of the matter. It is true that the
airlines have pre-programmed flight plans, but the captain still has
enough autonomy to decide to change it, even after pulling out of the
gate. In fact, this happens quite often due to weather, traffic, ATC,
you get the idea.

Your comments seem to try to imply that I actually fly like my
fictitious character's comments. This also, is not the case. If you
were to actually read my comments, you'd realize that it was a
comparison to some of the attitudes of OD's in your discussion group,
perhaps yours.

Now, regarding licensing, training, credentials, and the like. You
actually think that an OD has more rigorous mandates than an airline
or military pilot? Although I don't deny that any practice that has to
do with human health is difficult, highly regulated, and stressful, I
think that you are in error to assume that all other professions are
easier. I spent 8 months deployed to Al Udeid, Qatar in 2002 while you
slept in bed with your wife/husband every night. The truth of the
matter is as I said earlier; all professions have their negatives. You
think that you are not paid enough money for your work. Now, I don't
have a problem with those kinds of complaints. In fact, I believe it
is none of my business, until I start hearing that you will try to
make up for the deficit by cheating me of proper care in order to get
more cattle through your stockade. What about lowering your overhead
costs, what about partnering, what about driving a more sensible car,
what about shopping at Wal-Mart like the rest of us, what about
research grant money, what about .... You seem to want the lifestyle
of a neurologist without having to earn the license. Like I said,
there are many ways to increase your income honestly, truthfully,
skillfully, and knowledgeably.

As I said, I'm not sure what your point was, or who you were trying to
impress with your infinite knowledge of flying, but my point
remains….if you don't like optometry enough to provide a loving care
of your patients, then get out. Doctorapk, I'll assume that you are
one of the people to whom I referred to earlier since you so
vehemently argued your position. By the way, helicopter is spelled
h-e-l-i-c-o-p-t-e-r.
>
> Pardon me Fred, but what the hell kind of pilot are you?
> I am a former army helicoptor pilot as well as air force pilot. My
> last missions were in Desert Storm.
> IF you've ever been in a jet you would know that things happen ultra
> quick in the air. Depending solely on your eyes in the air will
> get you in big trouble quick. What is simply a speck in front of you
> one second can end up being another aircraft a couple of seconds
> later heading right at you if you are on an approximately opposite
> heading. If the two should pass anywhere near each other, the craft
> with the bigger and longer (i.e. faster) slipstream WILL ALMOST
> CERTAINLY cause a SEVERE disturbance in the trajectory of the
smaller
> and/or slower craft. If the craft should flip it will almost
> certainly break apart within milliseconds as the top and belly of an
> aircraft are never designed to withstand the tremendous shear forces
> to which it would be subjected to if it should flip.
> CONSEQUENLTY MODERN PILOTS FLY WITH COMPUTOR ASSISTANCE AND
> PREDOMINANTLY BY INSTRUMENTS. AIR SPEED IS DETERMINED BY PLANE
> WEIGHT, BODY STYLE, ENGINE TYPE, WEATHER CONDITIONS, HUMIDITY,
> ALTITUDE, HEAD, CROSS AND TAIL WIND SPEED, ETC. AND IS CALCULATED BY
> COMPUTOR FOR EXPECTED AND SAFE RANGES. NO PILOT IN HIS RIGHT HEAD IS
> GOING TO PRETEND HE KNOWS EVERYTHING THAT IS GOING ON OUTSIDE HIS
> PLANE. ONE CANNOT SIMPLY DECIDE TO INITIATE A SHORT CUT WITHOUT
> INITIATING INQUIRIES AS TO WHAT HE/SHE IS DOING FROM THEIR CONTROL,
> WHETHER IT BE FROM A GROUND OR AIR BASED COMAND CENTER, AIRPORT
> TOWER, YOUR SHIP'S COMPUTOR AND EVEN YOUR CO-PILOT (REQUIRED ON
> COMMERCIAL FLIGHTS CARRYING PASSENGERS). A GOOD CO-PILOT WILL
> COMANDEER THE SHIP (i.e. RELIEVE YOU OF COMMAND) IF YOU DO ANY OF
> THE THINGS YOU MENTIONED, AS YOU ARE ENDANGERING THE PASSENGER'S and
> CREW'S LIVES.
> WITH COMMERCIAL PILOTS, THEY ARE MOST INVOLVED WITH TAXIING TO AND
> FROM THE LOADING GATE, CONTROLLING THE PLANE DURING LIFT OFF AND
> LANDING AND MONITORING THE SHIPS INSTRUMENTS DURING FLIGHT, MAKING
> ADJUSTMENTS IN ALTITUDE AND DIRECTION ACCORDING TO WEATHER
> CONDITIONS. THEY FOLLOW A PRE-ORDAINDED FLIGHT PLAN WHICH IS
> PREFABRICATED (USUALLY) AND APPROVED BY THE FAA AND FILED BEFORE THE
> PLANE CAN EVEN MOVE! THERE IS REALLY ALMOST NOTHING TO DECIDE OTHER
> THAN LANDING APPROACH TACTICS WHICH CAN BE CHANGED DEPENDING ON
> CONDITIONS. LIFT-OFF IS MUCH SIMPLER.
> SO WHERE ARE THE SHORT CUTS?
> BY THE WAY PILOT NEVER SPEAK OF GAS. THEY USE THE TERM FUEL.
> THEY RUN TRAINING SCHOOLS FOR AIRLINE PILOTS WHICH I BELIEVE TAKE 3-
6
> MONTHS in COLORADO, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA AND TEXAS. I KNOW OF THESE.
> I'M SURE THERE ARE OTHERS. AS A MATTER OF FACT THE 9/11 hijackers,
or
> at least some of them, were trained at a school in Texas I believe.
> Took them 3 months. Of course, than it is a matter of logging
> thousands of hours in the air before you are ever certified by an
> airline to be a captin.
> MODERN PILOTS ARE LIKE AVIONIC COMPUTOR OPERATORS.
> Optometrists take 4 years of training. THAN you HAVE to PASS A
> NATIONAL BOARD in order to become licensed. And only then are ever
> allowed to even see a patient on your own.
> And what do commercial pilots make? 60K like many O.D.s and laid off
> if the boss doesn't like you.
> Nah, in the 100's to mid 100 hundreds and YOU CANNOT OVERWORK
> YOURSELF. THE FAA HAS LIMITS AS TO HOW MANY HOURS YOU CAN BE IN THE
> AIR, before rest is MANDATED. YOUR HEALTH IS SAFEGUARDED BY FEDERAL
> LAW. AMERICA'S BEST CONTACTS WANTS YOU TO SEE 50 PATIENTS A DAY AND
> IF YOU DROP DEAD FROM A CORONARY THEY WILL REPLACE YOU WITH AN
> UNEMPLOYED O.D. THE NEXT DAY.
> NOPE, WATCH A PILOT IN THE AIRPORT AND THEY ARE AUTHORITATIVE AND
> SELF ASSURED BECAUSE THEY ARE TREATED WELL. O.D.s? HELL, ONE
> RECRUITER TOLD ME HE CAN PICK THEM OFF THE TREES.
> AND YOU WONDER WHY MANY OPTOMETRISTS ARE UNHAPPY? CHECK YOUR THINK
> TANK CAPTAIN, YOU'RE ALMOST OUT OF FUEL!
> By the way, I don't think there is any "C"ensorship on this panel.
> ONE OTHER THING, I HAVE HAD A LITTLE PERSONAL CONTACT WITH PILOTS
WHO
> FLY SOME OF THESE BIG, HEAVY FLYING FORTRESSES. THE CONTROLS ARE SO
> VERY SLOW AND SO VERY SLUGGISH THAT YOU HAVE VERY LITTLE TIME TO
> CORRECT A MISTAKE. CONSEQUENTLY, THEY TEND TO FLY SUPER CAUTIOUS AND
> BY THE BOOK, ON ORDER OF THEIR CONTROL AND VIA THEIR INSTRUMENTS AND
> COMPUTOR. THEY CERTAINLY DON'T "WING IT" FOR ANY
> REASON. THEY KNOW, BEING IN THE COCKPIT, THAT IF THEY MAKE A MISTAKE
> THEY ARE GOING TO "FIND OUT THE RESULTS" FIRST. SO, NO "TAKING AND
> SHORTCUTS" OR OTHER SUCH NONSENSE.
>
> "icfine70", I don't think you see all that finely.
>
> GOD HELP ME IF I'M EVER IN AN AIRCRAFT CAPTAINED BY YOU. THAT'S IF
> YOU'RE STILL ALIVE , OF COURSE.

> Dear Gwen,

> Subject:  It always helps -- to check yourself.

> I your son does not like "glasses" and thinks his vision
is good -- then have him read this official Snellen.

> Just click here, and then on "Display".

> http://www.smbs.buffalo.edu/oph/ped/IVAC/IVAC.html

> Vision does vary, and with his "prescription" (-1/2 diopter),
  I would suspect he could read the 20/30 line.


> (The DMV requires the reading of the 20/40 line.)


> This should be educational for your son -- and fun
to learn how to do it.  Your OD should be supportive
of this independent checking by you and your son.


> Second-opinion best,


> Otis


> On Oct 23, 4:29 pm, "Gwen via MedKB.com" <u36039@uwe> wrote:


> > I had thought that  there would be a unanimous view so the
differing opinions is quite confusing. I hear what you say about his
ability to see the board in class but don't believe I can make him
wear glasses when he says he can see fine them. Today I have spoken
to his teacher to explain the situation as I think the best thing I
can do is not to force the issue but make sure that his behaviour in
class is observed. If the teacher thinks that he is struggling to see
the board she will call me. Then I will tackle the issue.  Someone
said that he will wear them when he thinks he needs to and I think
that is the only way.


From Majority-opinion PClar:

Dear Gwen,

Please disregard this idiot, Otis Brown.  He is a layperson without
any knowledge or experience in vision.  He is a quack with an axe to
grind, as you can see when you visit his website.  He is also selling
a book he will be happy to take your money for.

The apparent inconsistency in answers that you are getting here is
because there are basically two groups of people replying to your
thread.  The doctors and knowledgable laypersons, and the internet
trolls and freaks.  Among the former group there is Dan, myself,
Neil,
Mike Tyner, Dr. Leukoma, Catman, Mark A, etc.  Among the latter is
Otis Brown, lena, and Zetsu.


For nearsighted people like your son, in MOST cases, wearing glasses
only helps him to see better when they are on.  If he chooses not to
wear them it does not hurt his vision nor does it help it either.
Studies show that the glasses have no impact on the future
development
of his eyes-- they just help him see better when they are on.  Its
that simple.  Like Pauline says, if he become more myopic and it
becomes even more difficult for him to see in the distance he will
probably start to wear them more, like her child.


Just disregard the wackos who claim that glasses cause your eyes to
get worse, and that glasses are an attempt to "hook" people so they
have to continue to buy them, etc. etc.  There are LOTS of crazy folk
out there and we have our share in this forum!


OD, PhD

===========

Dear Gwen,

Subject: The arrogance and ignorance of the majority-opinion.


PClar has a right to his OPINION, that a -3 diopter lens
has NO EFFECT on the refractive STATE of the
natural eye.  Tragically, his belief-system if false.


PClar likes to TRASH every professional and some layman
who DISAGREE WITH HIM.  Disagreement in
medicine and science is NORMAL -- and we should be
prepared to learn from these disagreements about the
natural eye's dynamic behavior.  But that is
indeed science -- and not medicine.


You will find optometrists who support the preventive plus
(and avoid the minus) for their own children.  The fact that
they will commit their own children to these preventive
methods is a major vote-of-confidence for fundamental
change.  See:


www.chinamyopia.org


No own should EVER tell you that their is a "perfect" solution --
because
there is none.


You should be aware that there are second-opinion ODs who refer
to that minus (your son is prescribed) as, "...poision glasses
for children".


I would suggest taking PClar's arrogance with a grain of
salt -- and keep an open mind on these subjects.
You can find my book for on:


www.i-see.org


Just one man's second-opinion,


Otis


+++++++++

Dear Gwen,


Subject:  A BALANCED choice for your son -- at this time.


The majority-opinion is rather biased as presented on
sci.med.vision.


If you son (and you) are interested in preventive methods -- you
might enjoy reading the following.


http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/truthsee.html


Enjoy,


Otis

JakeOD.txt


Subject: The OD and his development of the concept of
plus-for-prevention.

Re: Requirements to practice optometry

Here are some excerpts from the book, "THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF A
LAMED-VOV-NIK" -- (One of Thirty-six)

By Jacob Raphaelson

Written in 1958 at the age of 83

Jake's first minus lens prscription.

=======================

26. MY FIRST SPECTACLES

At that time a traveling spectacle man came to see us. He
stayed with us for several days. I told him about my troubles
with the shoe boxes. He sold me a pair of spectacles which opened
up a whole new world for me. They were minus 3.5 diopter lenses
in a small white metal frame. Minus lenses is another name for
concave lens. The unit measure for the lenses is signified by
"d." for diopter. I did not know about all this at that time. I
am giving the reader the benefit of my future knowledge.
Near-sighed eyes are fitted with concave glasses which give better
distant vision. At the same time, these glasses are harder on the
eye for close seeing.

Now I had a bicycle which enabled me to cover more distances
and a pair of glasses which enabled me to see farther away. I had
more than one hundred dollars left from Steubenville and also my
wages from East Tawas. I decided to become a medical doctor. In
those days the requirements to become a medical doctor were more
lax. However, a certain amount of schooling was necessary. I had
no regular schooling. I decided to go to the regular public
school to acquire the needed education.

I went to the principal of a school and told him my story.
He gave me an examination and accepted me as a pupil in the eighth
grade. I was twenty one years of age but of small stature. I do
not remember any inconvenience in going to class with much younger
boys and girls. I got along well for the short time I was there.
I could have kept up my schooling and perhaps, in time, become a
doctor. But now my eyes were failing me.

My eyes began to trouble me about two or three weeks after I
started to school. They began to hurt me when I read for any
length of time. Then they began to get sore. I had to quit
reading and I had to quit school within six weeks. This ended my
ambition to become a doctor.


====================

44. MISSED THE TRAIN (Leading to an optometry degree)

It was the latter part of December, 1899 in Dubuque, Iowa,
when I missed the train going westward, which resulted in my
taking the next train eastward to Chicago and getting an optical
diploma. I missed the train and was soon transformed from a
spectacle peddler to a traveling Doctor of Optics. Like the
prophet Jonah, I was trying to run away. I was running away from
God, my family and my past. I was going to the unknown west and
hoping to get lost. Missing my train brought me back to the
family and my past.

It was in Chicago, in the early part of 1900, that I took a
course in optics at the northern Illinois College of Ophthalmology
and Otology. At this school an optical diploma could be obtained
either through correspondence or by attending class at the school.
There was no time limit. The only requirement was to pass their
examination. If you passed the examination you got the diploma.
I decided to take an attendance course. I stayed there not quite
two months, passed the examination and got my diploma. The cost
was $25. I believe it was a good school.

During the time that I attended the optical school I had a
room downtown within walking distance of the school. I attended
each and every one of the lectures. I practiced with the
instruments and watched their method and technique in the fitting
of glasses. I was ready to make use of my diploma.

After receiving my diploma, the first thing I did was to make
a connection with a first class optical house, the F. A. Hardy &
Co. I got credit and made arrangements for them to send orders to
me or to my customers. I brought a full sized trial case,
suitable for traveling. I bought a hand retinoscope and a battery
retinoscope. I also bought a battery ophthalmoscope. I bought a
stock of lenses and frames. I was ready for traveling or office
business.

I decided to settle far enough, but not too far from Chicago.
Somewhere west of Chicago and east for the Mississippi river.
Somewhere between Chicago and Rock Island, Illinois.

I took the train to Dixon, Illinois, which is about 100 miles
west of Chicago and about 60 miles east of Rock Island, which is
on the Mississippi river.


45. DIXON, ILLINOIS

I took a train westward from Chicago to Dixon, Ill. In the
beginning I made my headquarters in Dixon, with the intention of
eventually settling in a small town south of there.

First I made a short-stop train tour circuit. I stopped and
sold spectacles in Sterling, Walnut, Prophetstown, Tampico, New
Bedford, Deer Grove, Yorktown, Lamoille, Subletts, Amboy and back
to Dixon. I canvassed the business people first, in these small
towns, to inquire if they or their families wished to have their
eyes examined.

Then I would take my trail case and stock with me and go back
to those who canted my services, make the examination and sell
them the spectacles. On my next trip I canvassed the residential
sections of the towns in the same way. If someone needed
spherical cylinder lenses or bifocals, I would take their order
and send them the spectacles by mail. I collected no deposit. I
trusted them to send me a check or money order after they received
their spectacles. In the more than two years that I worked that
circuit I never lost a payment.

Later I bought a horse and buggy, in which I could carry my
trial case and my stock, and began to canvass the farmers in this
same territory. I used the same technique in the country. First
I made a tour of the main highways. the I would repeat the tour,
stop to see the people to whom I had sold glasses, inquire as to
how the glasses fit and make inquires about their friends and
neighbors who might be in need of glasses.

For nearly two years I traveled in my territory, south,
southeast and northeast of Dixon, with my horse and buggy,
examining eyes and fitting and selling glasses. I made many
friends both in the towns and in the country.

For nearly a year I was undecided as to what town I should
make my permanent headquarters and open an office. Then, mainly
because of Dr. Miller, a dentist, I decided to settle in
Prophetstown. I had the good will of Dr. Miller because I had
helped his wife. She had been suffering with headaches and her
eyes, also had been bothering her for close seeing at night by
lamp-light. I fitted here with a pair of plus glasses which made
it easier for her to read at night and they also cured her
headaches. Dr. Miller gave me a letter of recommendation.

Dr. Miller offered me a part of his office. the small town
of Prophetstown suited me fine. I had the good will of the people
there and in the surrounding small towns and farming communities.
I had excellent opportunities to try spectacles on all sorts of
eyes and observe the good effects they had on all sorts of bodily
ailments. I found that plus glasses were beneficial to eyes AND
HEALTH.

It was soon after I cured Dr. Miller's wife of her headaches
that I met Mr. Courts in the village of Deer Grove, near
Prophetstown. It was Mr. Court's story which gave me an added
incentive to try spectacles for ailments other than headaches.

JakeSpec.txt

Re:  Requirements to practice optometry (Part 2).

      Here are some excerpts from the book, "THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF A
LAMED-VOV-NIK" -- (One of Thirty-six)

By Jacob Raphaelson

Written in 1958 at the age of 83

      Optometry was indeed primitive.  But how much has anything
'improved' in the last 100 years?


Raphaelson's Conclusion:

In later years I came to the conclusion that the benefits to
vision and health, derived from wearing plus 1.00 or plus 1.50
diopter spectacles is worth not only $150.00, but ten times as
much.  Fifteen hundred dollars for a pair of plus one spherical
glasses, or stranger, would be a low price to pay for prevention
or remedy of human ailments in comparison with the amount we pay
for many other methods of treatment.

=======================


      35.  SPOONS AND SPECTACLES

      I ran away from Toledo in March, 1899, because of my unlucky
adventures there.  I had no destination in mind and it was too
early in the spring to ride a bicycle straight west.  I took a
southerly course through the state of Indiana where I lingered for
more than three months.

      I left Toledo riding on a bicycle with two valises, one on
each handle of the bike.  The larger valise was packed with my
personal belongings, the smaller with my peddling merchandise,
spoons and spectacles. I soon found that the spectacles were the
better seller of the two.  I never reordered the spoons.  By
default, I became a spectacle peddler.

      I was on the road only a few weeks, selling my spectacles,
when I began to feel in my bones that, at last, I was doing
something for which I was fitted.  I soon gained my
self-confidence, lost a good deal of my bashfulness and timidity
and became more able to confront anyone without fear or shame.
Besides, I lost my rheumatism, and was it for good.  I soon
realized that by selling spectacles I would become a benefactor
instead of a nuisance. I could see in the faces of people to whom
I sold spectacles not only satisfaction, but gratitude.  I decided
to make the selling and fitting of spectacles my life work.

      On my southerly course through Indiana I peddled at farm
houses, stopped over-night at farm houses and nearly always
exchanged a pair of spectacles for the night's lodging.  Sometimes
I sold spectacles in small towns while passing through.  I do not
remember stopping in any city until I reached Fort Wayne, Ind.

      I rode to Fort Wayne on my bicycle and stopped at a corner
place where there was a saloon at the front and a sign, "Rooms for
Rent".  I rented a room which was upstairs, over the saloon and
slept there over night.  In the morning I went into the saloon and
ordered a glass of beer.  I was standing at the bar holding my
spectacle valise in one of my hands.  There was a tall man
standing beside me, also having a glass of beer.  He asked me, in
a friendly, manner, "What are you selling?" I said, "I am selling
spectacles." "Spectacles?", he exclaimed, "To sell spectacles you
have to have a 'brass' fact." Said I, "Suppose I do not have a
brass face"?  Said he, "Then put in on." I decided, then and
there, to put it on.

      I didn't ask the man what he meant by a "brass" face, nor
what it has to do with spectacles.  However, I felt that it was
suitable advice for me.  I was being handicapped by being timid
and bashful.  I was already convinced that in selling spectacles I
became a benefactor.  It gave me a sense of security.  I had no
reason to be ashamed or afraid.  From then on I do not remember
the time when I was really ashamed or afraid.

      It was still cold while I was in Fort Wayne.  I continued
southwestwardly.  I stopped for a few days in Bluffton, Indiana.
Then I rode south to Muncie.  I must have stayed a week or more in
Muncie.  I became acquainted with a Jewish family there and they
invited me to their home for a card game.  I remember that they
played hearts and I lost 99 cents in the game. I remember that it
broke my heart.  I soon left Muncie.  It was beginning to get
warmer so I rode straight west to Lafayette, Indiana.

      In Lafayette I rented a room upstairs above a corner
restaurant.  I had most of my meals at the restaurant and I also
kept my bicycle there. I made the restaurant a kind of office for
my spectacle business. I used to ride away eight or ten blocks,
leave my bicycle and peddle a few blocks.  Then I would ride to
another location.  I even began to take orders for spectacles. I
already had it in my mind to settle in some town and have a
permanent location.  I did fairly well in Lafayette.

      =================

      36.  FIRST ATTRACTION, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, 1899

      There was an eye doctor in Muncie or Lafayette who I went to
see for information about becoming an eye doctor.  He told me that
one could not become an eye doctor unless he was first a regular
doctor.  He also told me that there was an optical school in
Chicago where one could learn to fit glasses and become and
optician.  I felt that because of my eyes and my health and my
pocketbook, it would be too much to try to become a doctor.  But
if I decide to remain in the spectacle business, I would go to
school and become a full-fledged optician.

      After many weeks in Lafayette I became somewhat sick.  I went
to see a doctor but he didn't do me much good.  I decided to go to
Chicago where they had free clinics with good doctors. In Chicago
I went to a free clinic.  They gave me some medicine and soon
afterwards I was really cured.

      Maybe I would have managed to go to the optical school then.
I might have stayed and settled in Chicago if there had been any
chance of marrying Ray.  But Ray paid no attention to me.  Her
attentions were for Harry B.  Later she married him.  On account
of my disappointment with Ray and perhaps, also, because I didn't
have enough funds to go to school, I did not linger in Chicago
very long.  After a few weeks I again resumed my journey westward
on my bicycle.

      37.  OPTICAL ADVANCEMENT

      In the few weeks that I was in Chicago I made arrangements
for a change.  I made a change from being a spectacle peddler to a
professional eye fitter -- from a seller of ready-made spectacles
to one who makes up spectacles to fit the eyes.  I did not then go
to the optical school to learn to fit glasses. Instead I brought
a book and learned it myself.  Instead of buying ready-made
glasses for resale, I brought a stock of separate frames and
separate lenses.

      The book was quite new.  It was printed in 1895.  The author
was William Bohn.  It was called, "Handbook for Opticians".  I
still have the book I just reread parts of the book and find that
it is still reliable and not obsolete.

      This book gives the basis principles of refraction and
dispersion of light.  It tells how optical glass is made.  It
tells all about convex and concave lenses, cylinder lenses and
prisms.  IT has a chapter on the anatomy of the eye.  It tells
about nearsightedness (myopia), far-sightedness (Hyperopia), old
sight (presbyopia) and also astigmatism.  Of course it didn't take
me long to read and digest a book of a couple of hundred pages.

      I went to Morris & Co., a jeweler-optician supply house and
brought a pocket trial case and a stock of lenses and frames,
three kinds -- straight bows, curved bows and nose frames.  They
were in three sizes, No.  1 (small), No 0 (medium) and No.  00
(large).  They were all small lenses in comparison to what the
sizes of lenses are today.  The larger 00 lenses were smaller than
children's glasses are today.  I was now ready to fit a pair of
glasses and make them up while the customer waited.

      38.  SATCHEL AND TRIAL CASE

      I didn't carry the pocket trial case in my pocket.  It
happened to fit exactly into my small optical satchel.

      Besides the trial case, my satchel held a reading chart, a
small distance chart, some frames, a few dozen pairs of lenses in
lens boxes and some small tools for inserting the lenses into
frames.  Thus I was able to test the eyes and make up a pair of
glasses at people's homes while they waited.

      I was now able to test eyes, not only for reading, but also
for distant seeing.  I do not believe that I tried any cylinder
lenses for astigmatism because I had no astigmatic chart.  It was
in later years that I learned to fit cylinders without an
astigmatic chart.  I remember that I felt sure of myself.  I felt
sure that I was capable of doing my work well.

      During the next six months that I traveled from Chicago to
Dubuque and Muscatine, Iowa and back to Chicago, where I attended
an optical school and got a diploma, I gained a lot of knowledge
and experience in the art of fitting spectacles.  I remember that
when I went to listen to the lectures at the optical school I
found that there were a few matters about spectacles that I did
not already know.

      Then I came back to Chicago in January, 1900, I was again
financially independent.  I had a fitting apparatus.  I had quite
a stock of lenses and frames, and quite a little cash on hand. I
also seemed to have very good health.

      39.  ILLINOIS

      I kept on riding westward on my bicycle and sold glasses to
farmers along the way. I did not linger in any towns, large or
small. I rode mostly on the road.  When the road was poor I rode
on the railroad track. In this way, by the end of summer I
reached Dubuque, Iowa.

      In Dubuque I was far enough away from home.  Far, but not too
far from Chicago.  Far enough away from Harry and his red haired
wife.  Far enough from my disappointments.  It was almost fall and
cold weather would be coming soon.  It was also near the High
Holidays.  I decided to halt and again try my luck in a city.  I
looked up some Jewish people in town.  I was offered room and
board by the Shocket and Rabbi of the Jewish community.  I
accepted the offer and decided to say in Dubuque for the Holy days
and for some time afterwards.

      40.  DUBUQUE, IOWA

      I didn't leave Dubuque in disappointment.  I left it in
doubt. I didn't go father west anymore.  It was getting colder
and not suitable for bicycle riding.  I sold my bicycle and bought
a horse and buggy.  I took a leisurely course southward.  I sold
glasses mainly to farmers on the road. I kept away from cities on
the Mississippi river. I drove through the Iowa farm country
almost straight south until I reached Muscatine, Iowa, where I
again halted.

      41.  A SPECTACLE FAKER

      It was in October, 1899 that I was driving southward from
Dubuque, Iowa to Muscatine, Iowa, a distance of about a hundred
miles. Along the way I stopped in a villages and farm houses to
sell my spectacles.  It was on this trip that I came across the
trail of a spectacle faker.  A spectacle doctor who was a phony.

      I stopped overnight at a farm house where there was a young
woman wearing spectacles.  She told me a pathetic story.  About
three years before, she had not been felling well for quite a
while; her eyes had been bothering her.  A traveling optical
doctor happened to come around at that time and promised to help
here with a pair of spectacles.  He charged here $150.00 for the
spectacles and told here that the frames were solid gold and the
lenses were pure crystal.

      She didn't have the full $150.00 at that time, so he let her
have the spectacles on the payment of $75.00; he was to collect
the balance in a couple of weeks.  She said, "The poor doctor!
Something must have happened to him.  It has been more than three
years and he has not yet come back for his money." She was still
keeping the $75.00 case in her home, waiting for him to collect
it.

      When I examined the spectacles I found that the frames were
not sold gold but the cheapest roman alloy.  The lenses were
clamped in the frame and there were no hinges and screws for
repair purposes.  The plus 1.50d lenses had bottle-greenish tint
which were the cheapest kind of glazed spectacles sold in those
days in some hardware stores for less than twenty-five cents.  I
returned her spectacles, but the woman seemed to be so healthy, I
didn't have the nerve to say anything.  I didn't want to spoil the
woman's faith and satisfaction by telling her that she had been
defrauded.

      This episode, in the year 1899, gave me an incentive to
search for the relationship of vision, spectacles and health.  In
the early part of that year I had already committed myself to make
the fitting of spectacles my life work.

      In later years I came to the conclusion that the benefits to
vision and health, derived from wearing plus 1.00 or plus 1.50
diopter spectacles is worth not only $150.00, but ten times as
much.  Fifteen hundred dollars for a pair of plus one spherical
glasses, or stranger, would be a low price to pay for prevention
or remedy of human ailments in comparison with the amount we pay
for many other methods of treatment.

jem6116" <jem6116@...> wrote:

> In a paragraph, please say why optometry sucks.

> I can think only of good things about it, e.g.:

> 1. It's prestigious (though obviously not as prestigious as law,
investment banking, "real" medicine, etc.)

NO, Patients only look to you only to get their eyeglass/ Contact lens
prescription

> 2. It's not stressful.

Wrong, Patients overwear contacts, won't replace 5 dollar lens, get
infected and sue you. Patients don't want to be dilated, but will sue
you if you miss a retinal detachment, Contacts.com, Wal Mart will make
you broke.

> 3. It pays well.

NO, Wal Mart, Sears, Lenscrafters will steal your patients. Loball
insurance, exams for $39.00 will force you to see 4 an hour and then
you will get sued.

> 4. You can work out of urban areas.

NO, oversupply, you want to work for $39.00 per patient after enduring
8 years of hell.

> 5. You can, and usually do, work out of a hospital.

NO, Hospitals don't want you. You can not do surgery, You can not
bring INCOME into the hospital. Ok, You can wait around the ER to
remove something from the eye.

I have been doing this OD thing since 1984. I am stressed, live in a
rural area where people think you are rich, worry all the time about
patients who only want the cheapest.

Go to poditary school.

Subject:  VT patients are underserved

I will chime in on this. I recently did an exam on a 14 year old
patient with good grades. His dad wanted a second opinion on his
extropia and amblpyopia that would cost $7,000+ (4 times a week for
four months). Statements by the dad were "The other OD looked me in
the eye and said that he was surprized my son could catch a ball with
visual skills like these." " If I need to borrow money on my house to
fix my kid, I'll do it, but I really got the idea it was all about
the money."

I did a full work up and found nothing. No XT. No ambylopia. No
exophoria. No suppression. No accom. Insuf. No oculumotor
dysfunction. And I looked hard. You could argue that his vergence
ranges were a little low, but he was asymptomatic.

I told the dad to work on the other problems his son is having, and
that I'd like to keep in touch and watch out. Not brushing him off,
and not starting VT.

Now I don't talk negatively about anybody to patients. I just had
different findings. Is it possible that this other OD has test that
are signficantly more senative than mine. Maybe. Was the kid having a
bad day on the first test and a great day on Friday? Maybe. Was the
doc having a bad day when he presented the case for VT? Maybe.

The point is - I could have charged this guy $4,000 for VT and it
would have seemed like a bargain to him. But I'm an ethical guy -
like most ODs and most VT ODs - I called it as I saw it.

-Nate

PS: I once had a dentist tell me I wasn't flossing enough and that I
needed $2,000 worth of "deep cleaning." I take pretty good care of my
teeth. I got a second opinion and this dentist (and every oter one)
said my gums were fine. Point: Again, it really doesn't matter what
profession you are in, it is ALL about how ethical you are.

Re: VT patients are underserved

Herein lies the deception. Child not doing well in school, lets try
some VT. It's better than nothing. Your child have headaches? How
about some VT. VT addresses all the vague soft symptoms that really
have no firm diagnosis and promises a cure. In my opinion, it's wrong
and it's unethical. Hey, but you can make good money with the warm
understanding smile and saying a few things the parent wants to hear.

Optometery Sucks

From "Optometry Sucks"

Re: [optometrysucks] Re: Optometry Sales


Maybe all you cynics would be much happier if all optometrists went
away like magic so you can pay ophthalmologists $200 for an eyeglass
exam or $400 for a contact lens exam that they barely participate in.

In case you weren't taught this by your dad the 6th grade dropout or
your third grade teacher, we live in a capitalist system where people
make money to live and have to pay business expenses. If you don't
want to see an optometrist and be "schmoozed" into a well-fitting,
attractive pair of glasses or other quality eyewear, go to some
socialist country where phoropters are unique and you have black
plastic eyeglass #1 or eyeglass #2 to choose from, and correction for
astigmatism is unheard of.

The same cheapskate morons who whine about "being sold" nice eyewear
also whine about having been "given" ugly glasses after refusing to
shell out an extra $50 bucks to make themselves look human rather
than like a mad scientist. When I used to sell eyeglasses, these
idiots couldn't understand why the good-looking $200 frame (wholesale
$150) is  more expensive than the $40 frame (wholesale $10).  Give me
a break.

MO_BS.txt

Subject:  Majority-opinion bull:  A minus lens has NO EFFECT on
	   the eye's refractive STATE.

      In general, I consider the natural eye to be proven to be
dynamic.

      I consider that we (I) induced a negative refractive STATE in
my eyes -- by my own unfortunate "habits" as a very young child.

      I also consider that if there is to be REASONABLE change,
then, in part, that change must occur through the education of the
parent and child about the need for prevention -- at the
THRESHOLD.

      I therefore do not argue for "myopes" -- because it becomes
too late -- ONCE YOU BEGIN WEARING THAT MINUS LENS ALL THE TIME.

      Here are some bogus argumements of majority-opinion
misconception about these issues:

=============

On Oct 21, 12:00 pm, p.clar...@... wrote:

PClar> why do you think you can offer advice here?  what
	 experience or training do you have?  all you have are
	 misconceptions and beliefs in things that are not true.

Leukoma> [sarcasm] Why, this is Otis Brown, world famous retired
	 engineer.  Don't you know?  He has annointed himself to
	 speak for myopes everywhere.

[False!  I support BOTH prevention-minded optometrists -- and the
	 NECESSARY education of the parent/child on these issues.
	 And this MUST develop before the child is put into an
	 excessive minus lens.  True PREVENTION is the ONLY
	 possibility for the future.  OSB]

Leukoma> He is the champion of myopes.

[No, simply support for the education necessary to AVOID BECOMMING
	 A MYOPE.  Sorry that Leukoma is so screwed up on the
	 subject of true-prevention.  OSB]

Leukoma> Myopes are created by ODs and MDs

[Again, absolutely FALSE.  The child INDUCES a negative refractive
	 STATE in his natural eye -- by his own actions -- like
	 reading at -10 diopters (4 inches) for long periods of
	 time.  If FORCE this on the young primate eye -- exactly
	 the same thing happens.  Fundamental responsibility rests
	 with the person himself.  OSB]

Leukoma> who prescribe the nefarious "minus lens" and other
	 criminal acts.

[Again, and exagerated and TOTALLY FALSE IDEA. I never said
	 ANYTHING like this.  You can say that these ODs REACT to
	 the RESULT of the actions these children take. And, in
	 that context, perhaps limited choice.  But that simply
	 defines the limit of optometry -- as acknowledged by
	 Raphaelson.  OSB]


Leukoma> Why, he himself is a high myope who, unfortunately, knew
	 nothing of the magical "plus lens therapy"

[There is no "magic" in the natural eye's proven behavior.s It is
	 what it is.  You must simply take the time to UNDERSTAND
	 it.  Further true PREVENTION is NOT THERAPY, and the
	 subject-matter is NOT MEDICINE.  OSB]

Leukoma> before he fell into the clutches of his OD, who myoped
	 him for life,

[No, as an engineer -- I began to understand the CONSEQUENCES of
	 my own "bad habits" as a very young child -- not to
	 mention 16 years in school, college and graduate school.
	 The responsibility was MINE -- in the first place.  But I
	 do agree -- it is very difficult to STOP a child from his
	 bad visual "habits".  OSB]

Leukoma> ruined his budding career as a pilot, and forced him into
	 a life-sentence of engineering drudgery.[/sarcasm]

[All of this is false. I enjoy learning, analysis, understanding,
	 and finally learning about true PREVENTION.  From this
	 sarcastic blindness of Leukoma, I will say that you have
	 no choice but to:

1.  Understand these issues for yourself.  And

2.  If you have a desire to keep your distant vision clear through
	 the school years -- teach yourself how to use the plus
	 correctly -- BEFORE that minus.

Best,

Otis

Some ODs are learning how to help their own children
with prevention -- at the threshold.

Others have their heads buried so deep in their
"office" that they are never going to see
the scientific "light of day".

In this case, the child (13 years old) had been
prescribed a minus lens (first).  As with professor
David Gutyton I suggested that the use of the
minus be avoided.  Given a "prescription" of
-1/2 diopter (in a dark room) I rather expect
he had 20/40 or better.

Here is a review for your interest:

<otisbr...@...> wrote:


> Otis> These are minus lenses.  His DISTANT vision has blur.
His NEAR vision is good.  The one time when he should NOT
wear the minus lens -- is when he is doing "close work".
Even some ODs agree in this point.


MOClar> why do you think you can offer advice here?  what experience
or
training do you have?  all you have are misconceptions and beliefs in
things that are not true.

[The arrogant majority-opinion -- as before.  The minus has
been called "poision glasses for children".  That is
closer to scientific truth -- that PClar will ever be.  OSB]

the glasses would help the child see a little better at distance so
if
he is having trouble then he could wear them.  the glasses have no
effect on how the child sees at near since he is nearsighted.  they
do
not help him with near work, and they do not hurt him for near work.

[A great deal of fundamental scientific truth disagrees with
PClar's notion here.  OSB]

your false stupid remark that "The one time when he should NOT wear
the minus lens -- is when he is doing "close work" is wrong.

[PClars pure BELIEF.  Science strongly suggests otherwise.  OSB]

   And the ODs DO NOT agree with you on that point.

[Say that majority-opinion ODs agree with PClar -- and that
would be accurate.  To imply that ALL ODs agree with
PClar's opinion -- is indeed FALSE. OSB]


YOU believe it because you
have your false misconceptions that minus lenses hurt people.

[I NEVER said that.  It is in PClars MIND.  On a scientific
level, I simply stated objective FACT.  That is you
take the fundamental eye -- place a -3 diopter lens on it,
it will change its refractive STATE by -2 diopters in
less than six months.  Anyone who doubts this dynamic
behavior of the fundamental eye -- should run
this experiment himself.  That result does have
IMPLICATIONS for this discussion -- but NOT directly.
For God's sake -- THINK for yourself.  OSB]


  It has
been proven time and time again that myopes who don't wear their
glasses at all, or don't wear them when they do near work, has NO
EFFECT on development of further refractive error.

[That is not the subject I have been discussing.  OSB]


go away Otis!  you continue to give people improper advice and you
don't even care.

[Improper "advice" by the majority-opinion.  Good advice
in terms of second-opinion PREVENTION.  OSB]


  You are a health hazard to anyone who reads your
posts and takes you seriously.

[And PClar only exacerbates stair-case myopia with
his over-prescribed minus -- and his statement
that a -3 diopter lens has NO EFFECT ON THE
REFRACTIVE STATE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL EYE.
Look at science -- and consider PClar's profound
BIAS about these subjects.]

Best,

Otis

PClarOD.txt

      Subject:  PClar's opinion on the future of optometry.


      Optometry is a good career, especially for women. What makes
it good is that working in a commercial situation you can be
flexible with your hours so that you can manage the other aspects
of your life and still maintain a career.  All you need is a
partner who can work some time at your practice for you.  For
example, my wife has been an optometrist for 26 years and when our
children were born she dropped her working time down to 2-3 days
per week and the rest of the time she cared for the kids.  At that
time I had a conventional M-F mid- management job at a medical
products company.

      Later on, I got fed up with the Dilbert-like aspects of
working at a Fortune 500 company and quit and went to Optometry
school myself. I already had earned a PhD degree in physiological
optics when I was younger and in graduate school so the training
aspects, aside from the clinical training, came easily to me and I
already had a good background in the area.  Now we are both
practicing together and between the two of us (working 8 days a
week total with two of us) at a commercial location we gross $200+
per year.  We live in the mid- west so that income goes a long
way.  Now let me make a few bullet points here before this
response gets too long:


- some ODs will bad-mouth commercial optometrists as doing fast
       exams and poor quality work.  Thats BS.  The OD does
       whatever quality exam he wants to no matter what his
       practice location is.  I know for a fact that we do higher
       quality work that some of the private docs working in our
       area.  This profession is going commercial and its an
       irresistable force.  You can join it and adapt to it, or you
       can whine about it and make up false claims about it.


- a hugely important trend in the market is the impact of
       refractive surgery.  I picked up a few days working at a
       refractive surgeons office in our area 2 years ago and I was
       shocked at how many of my (former) patients were going
       there.  Now I see kids for exams while there parents smile
       at me and tell me they have gotten LASIK.  this is a trend
       that is shrinking the market for optometrists unless they
       learn to adjust. Optometrists who have depended on
       primarily refractions and glasses or contacts for their
       income are fighting form a dwindling number of patients.
       Its more and more important for optometrists to switch to
       medical management systems and practice the full scope of
       our professional licensure by treating glaucoma, dry eye,
       etc.  by billing medical insurance programs and having the
       appropriate equipment to manage those patients.  Your
       daughter will be trained on all those aspects of optometry
       in school and she will need that to be successful in the
       future.


- The lack of benefits that optometrists have (no retirement, no
       health insurance, etc.) makes it critical that they wisely
       invest a portion of their income into that area. and its
       expensive.


- The health care system in the US is about to change. The impact
       for optometrists is unknown but I think it will be positive.


      In the end I would give a qualified Yes to earning an
optometry degree.  Now is a time of change in the profession but I
wouldn't chime the death bells just yet.  Just keep your eyes open
and adjust for the future.

PClar