Author Topic: Why are ODs so scientifically blind?  (Read 977 times)

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Why are ODs so scientifically blind?
« on: November 29, 2014, 12:12:16 PM »
Subject:  Why research by optometrists - will never find anything damaging - to an optometrist in his office.

Item: I think you know why.

To them, a negative state of the natural eye, will always be a, "big mystery".

There are answers, but no OD wants to talk about it.   Here is the discussion, for your interest and commentary.

The scientific truth is that if you put the eye in "long-term near", it always changes its refraction in a negative direction. 

What would be wrong with, " putting the natural eye in a long-term near, CREATES negative status. This is a natural, and understood process.  If you wish to prevent, (at 20/40) you will have to get a +2.5 diopter, and wear it for all close work.  You will also have to get your own Snellen, and verify you always exceed the 20/40 line, and get to the 20/30 to 20/20 range, by your own efforts."

By your choice of descriptive words, and your ability own to analyze this issue by yourself - this is indeed the final answer.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2014, 08:03:37 PM by OtisBrown »

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Why are ODs so scientifically blind?
« Reply #1 on: November 29, 2014, 08:23:35 PM »
I have a hard time listening to all the assurance that:

1)  Long-term near does not create negative state - for all natural eyes.
2)  The strong minus should be worn all the time - as PRESCRIBED BY AN OPTOMETRIST.
3)  Your vision will get steadily WORSE, but it will "stabilize" after you get out of college - MAYBE.  (But then it will be too late for prevention).
4)  This is why "optometry research" will never "discover the cause" of negative status for all natural eyes.

So you think that optometrists are "not biased"?  So you believe that they are interested in scientific (not medical) truth?

Here again, is the bland assurance that wearing a strong minus, has NO ADVERSE EFFECT on the eye's refractive state.

5)  I will agree that unless the person will take a large degree of responsibility for true-prevention (at 20/40) he will just get a -2 diopter lens that is certain to make matters worse - not better.
6)  If this scientific truthful statement causes conflict, then you will have to work out your choice about a) Forget plus prevention, now and forever, or b)  Start wearing a plus under your wise control.   I do not think there is ever going to be an alternative c)

Look, I WANT to believe them, but I just can not believe them anymore.  The OD who described the minus as "poison" was on to the truth.

This commentary is even worse that the first video - if that is possible.

This is why I do not believe in them any more. They have a vested interest in perpetuating the "status quo", and NO interest in me
taking responsibility personal responsibility to prevent - as much as possible.

It is the difference between a scientific outlook, and a desire of the OD to, "please" the customer with a strong minus.

Prevention is indeed difficult.  But to expect a OD to take your visual self-protective interests seriously -- is just no reasonable any more.

« Last Edit: November 30, 2014, 10:03:52 AM by OtisBrown »

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Why are ODs so scientifically blind?
« Reply #2 on: November 30, 2014, 10:07:46 AM »
Your eyes are not broken, but the failure do discuss the preventive approach, is broken.  Prescribing and wearing a minus lens - is broken.  Your rational mind is not broken.

Tragic.  Do let yourself get caught in the minus lens trap.

The minus lens induced myopia is proven - check yourself.

But the OD will tell you that, "... this never happens...".

Who is the scientist?  Who is telling you the truth?
« Last Edit: November 30, 2014, 12:39:53 PM by OtisBrown »