Author Topic: Pure science - shows that prevention is possible - if you have the motivation.  (Read 836 times)

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Subject: I always rely on pure science to suggest that "just prevention" is possible.

Item:  The OD in his office, with his strong, impressive minus lens, says that prevention is always impossible.  (Who will win this argument)?

Will you win - or will you lose?

Jon>  Agreed 100%. I don’t think there is a big conspiracy (so-to-speak), so much as rehab probably just isn’t a focus (or not taught at all?) in schools and it’s generally accepted to not exist (at least by us laypeople until discovering it). Practitioners have more or less been doing the same thing for so long (as an industry) that it takes a lot of convincing (in the form of large studies of success cases) to change the tide and explore new options (even if those new options have been use by some for decades, they might be new to most). I can’t know any of this for a fact, but that’s my suspicion.
And is the science not as well studied (although some supporting research does seem to exist) as compared to other areas of medicine? It may need enough/more confirming studies and data to build a critical mass to the extent that practitioners are more comfortable in recommending rehab, and thus not (just guessing here) worried about lawsuits for trying something not yet established as a best practice.
Plus there is the fact that prevention and rehab don’t fit the instant gratification model that the general public (at least here in the USA) demands. Real improvement takes time and effort, so it’s a tough sell no doubt, but it would be nice to at least be presented it as an option (if the doc is aware the option exists). I never did ask about it though, I don’ t think. I wonder if this is ever taught as part of CME.
I’m just speculating here, but I have to believe that the better practitioners believe they are doing the right thing and aren’t biased by financial interests and may simply not know about all the new? possibilities to present to their patients. Or do know about it and are keeping up with recent developments, but need more hard science to stake their reputations on it, maybe seeing this as still in an experimental phase.
I think Alex has mentioned some of what I post here throughout the site to present a more balanced view at times, but I agree there is sometimes an air of being against the mainstream too which may turn some people off if they don’t explore with an open mind and listen to everything that is presented here which is more nuanced.


Otis> Hi John,
I try to stay out of this fight for "just prevention". You are correct, in saying that the average OD will fear “a legal kick-back” if he attempts to “prescribe prevention”. For the most part, the OD is taught that any prevention (at 20/40, and -1 diopter) is simply impossible. So they believe what they are taught, and ignore all science that shows that prevention is possible. I did a lot of investigation of this concept. But what convinces me the most, is that OD parents will make no attempt to help their own children with prevention. That is the most sad and tragic truth of this difficult situation. I always believe, on the basic of pure science, that prevention is both wise and possible. But the OD, who will not even help his own child, will not help you. This is why it is almost a waste of time to ask that question of an optometrist. He feels that successful prevention is totally “out of scope” for him, and that does end the discussion. This is so bad, that you can not even get the National Eye Institute to even discuss this issue. They should “open their mind”, because people who are not, “in their system”, are successful.

Please stop asking an optometrist about "just prevention". There is nothing they can do for you.

« Last Edit: March 14, 2015, 10:45:14 AM by OtisBrown »