Author Topic: Total Confusion in Optometry.  (Read 1373 times)

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Total Confusion in Optometry.
« on: December 18, 2014, 10:08:45 AM »
Subject: I am always respectful of ODs, but I truly want something better.

Item:  For myself, I have the Snellen, and objectively read the required lines for the DMV.  Then I know if I am required to take their test, I will always pass.  For my own safety, I have four test lenses, -1, -0.5, +0.5 and +1.  I do not believe in subjective judgments, that I why I report 20/20, accurately.

Item: the OD can not have any concern from *my* visual welfare - so I must do prevention myself.

Here is a 40 minute lecture about this confusion about successful prevention, based on scientific experiments. ***

I have listened to many of these lectures.  They always seem to miss the point - that prevention is possible at 20/40, and -1 diopter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NotdkmcUE6Q

I would compare this convoluted lecture, with Todd's analysis and his successful use of a plus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5Efg42-Qn0#t=68

So who is right?  Todd's the engineer who did it, and got back to 20/20?  Or the OD's who insist that threshold prevention will always be impossible - in their office?

I say this with deep respect - for I know how difficult "just prevention" from 20/50 is to do it.  But I just say, you must do all of it - yourself, including your own refractive measurements.

Your OD in his shop, is too confused to be of any help to you - at all.

+++++

***  Lecture presented at Optometry Tomorrow 2013


Subject: I am always respectful of ODs, but I truly want something better.

Item:  For myself, I have the Snellen, and objectively read the required lines for the DMV.  Then I know if I am required to take their test, I will always pass.  For my own safety, I have four test lenses, -1, -0.5, +0.5 and +1.  I do not believe in subjective judgments, made by an OD in his office.   That I why I report 20/20, accurately.

Item: The OD can not have any concern from *my* visual welfare - so I must do prevention myself.

 This Lecture presented at Optometry Tomorrow .  (With my commentary.)
 
Why do some children develop myopia while others don't?
 
 Otis> That is the wrong question to ask.  Ask, is the minus lens even safe?  Why not tell the person that there are high risks, that if you start wearing a strong minus all the time? Why is that subject always excluded in any preventive discussion?  Why not discuss Dr. Bates success - even if you totally disagree with him.

 Twin studies show conclusively that refractive error is largely determined by genetics.
 
 Otis> The refractive state, changes drastically, on all normal eyes, if you put a minus lens on them.  That is not due to "genetics" in any way.  Why not say so?

 Epidemiological studies documenting the tsunami-like rise in the prevalence of myopia in parts of Asia show conclusively that refractive error is largely determined by non-genetic environmental factors.
 
 Otis>  Good - this fact matches the objective science, of all natural eyes.  Why not, "connect the dots", and explain the issue to a person who can still read the 20/40 line, and save himself.  Or is that never a job for an optometrist?
 
  Bizarrely, as this lecture discusses, both of these viewpoints are probably correct.
 
 Otis> The dynamic eye concept (as pure science) versus the need to quick-fix a person with a minus.  Yes, I understand the pain of this issue.
 
 The combined effort of a team of more than a hundred scientists from across the world has greatly advanced knowledge of the molecular genetics of myopia, with the discovery of more than 20 'myopia-susceptibility genes'. (Oh, and a small company in the United States has made similar progress!). Animal models offer clues to how such genes might interact with our visual experiences to cause myopia.

Learning objectives: 

understand how differences in experimental strategy have reached paradoxically different conclusions regarding the aetiology  (cause) of myopia in order to explain patients' concerns in respect of further myopic change and strategies that might be appropriate and clinically sound
appreciate the current model of the 'genetic architecture' of refractive errors in order to help the practitioner relate the clinical scenario to the refraction and better explain it to the patient in order to allay his / her fears or concerns
better understand the limitations of animal studies and epidemiological studies of myopia in order to explain the possible changes in myopia the patient might expect in the coming years
 
 Otis> This is a run-on sentence, of about 50 words.  Yes, I would want to be told the "bitter truth", that the minus is a easy quick fix, that is suspected of making your vision profoundly worse.  Tell me this - and I will do my own research, and choose to do prevention, under my own control - because no OD will help me. 

 Otis> But this discussion does indeed, "clear the air" about who is responsible.

Otis> I conclude that experimental science is correct, about the dynamic natural eye having refractive STATES, not failures.

Otis> I regret that the ODs are totally confused, and want you to not be "afraid" of their "office position", that the minus lens is even safe.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2014, 12:20:32 PM by OtisBrown »

Offline Alex_Myopic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 430
Re: Total Confusion in Optometry.
« Reply #1 on: December 24, 2014, 01:46:54 PM »
@Mr Brown
Why these "theoretically experts" doctors who say that you do pirouettes and others refuse to just wear -1D (from their refractive state) for far for 6-9 months a couple of hours every day and tell us how minus lenses do not have an impact on eye elongation?!
Or even do close reading with this prescription!
« Last Edit: December 24, 2014, 01:52:22 PM by Alex_Myopic »