 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / May 2006Potential optometry student
I am considering becoming an optometrist, however I would first like to know how laser eye surgery is projected to affect optometry in the next 10 to 30 years. Will it compete with optometry? Or augment it? BLS.gov suggests that the optometry field with grow faster than average, however it mentions that "Employment of optometrists would grow more rapidly were it not for anticipated productivity gains that will allow each optometrist to see more patients. These expected gains stem from greater use of optometric assistants and other support personnel, who will reduce the amount of time optometrists need with each patient. Also, laser surgery that can correct some vision problems is available, and although optometrists still will be needed to provide preoperative and postoperative care for laser surgery patients, patients who successfully undergo this surgery may not require optometrists to prescribe glasses or contacts for several years." O*Net suggests that the field will grow an average amount. What are your feelings on the subject? Ace? Right up your alley.... > I am considering becoming an optometrist, however I would first like to > know how laser eye surgery is projected to affect optometry in the next [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > What are your feelings on the subject? Any effect of laser refractive eye surgery on the field of optometry will be outweighed by: the ageing of the population; increases in computer use for various occupations and introduction of computers into occupations that currently or formerly didn't use them; more years of study and more pressure to study for children and adults; the diabetes epidemic; the myopia epidemic; advances in contact lenses; etc etc There is no way that optometry will become a shrinking or dying field if that's your concern - go for it! Dom You forgot myopia prevention. Optometrists will be needed there as well. DrG Dear "G", Subject: Preventing a negative refractive state Please explain in detail exactly HOW you are now PREVENTING the development on a negative state -- other than ATTACKING those people and ODs who advocate it???? See: www.chinamyopia.org Otis ++++++++++ You forgot myopia prevention. Optometrists will be needed there as well. DrG Thank you all very much. It seems like a profession that I would quite enjoy, however I've found some things on the web that indicate that it may be a dwindling profession (Yahoo group optometrysucks, for example). An excess of OD students, health care concerns, wholesale contacts/glasses sellers, etc. Do you find these concern to be valid? I was originally just concerned about laser eye surgery, however now I have questions about these other things. > Dear "G", > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > than ATTACKING those people and > ODs who advocate it???? In my lengthy experience with the subject, what I've seen is that Optometrists attack: - Otis, for outright lies - Otis, for deception - Otis, for illogic that would have failed Logic 101 - Otis, for pushing questionable anecdotes as "fact" - Otis, for not telling people that unprescribed plus lenses can cause double vision - Otis, for withholding ALL KINDS OF important info VERY NECESSARY for people to make good decisions - Otis, for trying to change the lingo to suit his own purposes, while never addressing issues - Otis, for evading legitimate questions time after time after time - Otis, for CAUSING people to experience double vision--including somebody trying to maintain a military pilot's license - Otis, for having a financial ($25 book) interest in all of this, but never disclosing it I could go on ... and maybe I will. Their attacks are WHOLLY justified ... and all too restrained. I was thinking of being one too but its many years of college and studying. Also you probably cant really talk much about natural vision improvement or reducing/preventing myopia as youll hurt your own business and the business of your fellow optometrists and they will get mad and go after you. May be better to be a natural vision improvement therapist and teach class about eye exercises. Youll nip the problem in the bud! >I was thinking of being one too but its many years of college and >studying. Also you probably cant really talk much about natural vision [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >therapist and teach class about eye exercises. Youll nip the problem in >the bud! The Vast Ocular Conspiracy again, huh? The Optometric Mob. They're the ones who got Hoffa. Buried him in his minus-lens contacts in a horse farm in rural Michigan, right? ...and dentists don't teach proper dental hygiene ... because it's bad for business.... Ace, if you want people to stop being what you call "rude" to you ... you should automatically hit "cancel" before half of your posts ... and then refrain from posting the other half. That would be a start.... "The Vast Ocular Conspiracy again, huh?" explain why my optometrist never said anything about natural vision improvement or the plus lens(approperate IF pescribed by a licensed doctor) He did not look into the 2nd opinion but just handed me my glasses pescription and said wear them whenever you want to and come back when your eyes get worse then he sent me off. Basically I never had the chance to work on improving my vision back then. If I tried and it didnt work, I can rest easy knowing I did not go down into myopia land without a fight. "...and dentists don't teach proper dental hygiene ... because it's bad for business...." They of course do, but they tell you to see the dentist 2 to 4 times a year for checkups and cleaning anyway. Optometrists tell you to get your eyes exaimed at least yearly even if they arent getting any worse. >"The Vast Ocular Conspiracy again, huh?" > >explain why my optometrist never said anything about natural vision >improvement or the plus lens(approperate IF pescribed by a licensed >doctor) This is very simple ... but ... I'll type slowly for you: There has never been any evidence (let alone proof) that PSEUDO-myopia (excess accommodative tone) "becomes" axial-length myopia. If you have some, please provide it. If Otis has some (I've asked about 100 times), then HE should provide it. Neither is there any evidence that plus lens therapy prevents or reverses pseudomyopia. What there IS is a fairly tolerant group of patients who say, "if this crap won't work for me" (as it, apparently didn't for Otis's niece), then why should I do it?" "If it risks causing me double vision, then why should I do it?" "If there is ABSOLUTELY no evidence that minus lenses will cause my eyes any harm--despite numerous clinical tests--then why shouldn't I wear them." As I always say: optometrists are constrained in their practice to things that have been proved safe and effective. Otis is not. He can screw with people all day long and ... occasionally ... have to defend himself against a State investigation ... but not lose a license. >He did not look into the 2nd opinion The what? >but just handed me my >glasses pescription and said wear them whenever you want to and come >back when your eyes get worse then he sent me off. Basically I never >had the chance to work on improving my vision back then. If I tried and >it didnt work, I can rest easy knowing I did not go down into myopia >land without a fight. Otis's niece had a chance. Otis's niece had the most rabid proponent of plus lenses in the world. Otis's niece is STILL a myope. What do you know..... >"...and dentists don't teach proper dental hygiene ... because it's bad > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >year for checkups and cleaning anyway. Optometrists tell you to get >your eyes exaimed at least yearly even if they arent getting any worse. Uh ... what? Dear Ace, Subject: Let us just be honest. If a OD does not "like" prevention -- that is fine. If he attacks those ODs who do advocate plus-prevention -- that is OK. But then AFTER they engage in incessant ATTACKS ON SECOND-OPNION PLUS-PREVENTIVE OD, TO SAY: +++++++++++ You forgot myopia prevention. Optometrists will be needed there as well. DrG ++++++++++ Is incredible. As least be honest and say you are opposed to plus-prevention -- and let it go at that. Otis >As least be honest Honest? That's rich. How about an honest answer to these questions: 1. There seems to be a great deal of evidence that primates have widely differing visual systems. How is it that you feel so secure in saying that "all primate eyes" behave similarly in ANY regard? 2. In these monkey studies that you reference, isn't it true that the SAME STUDIES showed that, with even BRIEF periods away from the minus lens, the myopia was prevented? 3. If there was no medical indication that these monkeys needed corrective lenses at all, can you be sure that appropriate CORRECTION of somebody's REFRACTIVE ERROR will have similar results? If so, how? 4. You continually claim that a minus lens causes something that you call "stair-case myopia." Presuming that you mean that it does this in humans, can you cite your source for this claim? 5. You have repeatedly claimed that the Oakley-Young study is "proof" of this "stair-case myopia" phenomenon, but Oakley-Young only establishes that-in some people-myopia can get worse over time. It doesn't even CLAIM that a minus lens CAUSES this. Please explain your position. 6. Also-at least in part, based on the Oakley-Young study-you recommend that people use plus lenses to prevent myopia. Are you aware that the only people in the Oakley-Young study for whom plus lenses made ANY difference were those with diagnosed "near-point esophoria?" This is a convergence disorder. Do you have ANY EVIDENCE that the same result is likely with people who DO NOT HAVE this convergence disorder? 7. You claim to have known Donald Rehm, the founder of the International Myopia Prevention Association, for some decades. I presume that you are familiar with his FDA petition. In it, Mr. Rehm states: [quote]"A percentage of children may have difficulty "accepting" a large add because of the strong linkage in the human visual system between accommodation and convergence (turning the eyes inward when looking at something close). As a viewed object approaches the eyes, accommodation and convergence increase in proportion to each other. Over thousands of years, the brain has learned that this is the normal situation. Consequently, accommodation stimulates convergence and vice versa. Thus, if we converge without accommodating the appropriate amount, or if we accommodate without converging the appropriate amount, problems can develop for this small percentage of children such as eye fatigue, double vision, or other types of fusion problems. That is, the two images can no longer be fused together without discomfort. Normal binocular vision is interfered with."[/quote] Is there a valid reason why you have not attempted to make people aware of these SERIOUS risks of unprescribed plus lenses? 8. You continually cite Fred Deakins as a (questionable) success story. Do you think it is honest NOT to mention that Mr. Deakins is--in truth--myopic, that he is trying to sell a $40.00 product, and that his "testimonial" is used as an inducement to buy this product? 9. Do you have any economic interest in the product sold by Mr. Deakins? 10. You claimed that you were not selling a book--until, that is, I provided links to websites where it WAS being sold for $24.95 (with your home address as the "send check to" address). You then claimed that the entire book was available for free on the internet--until, that its--I pointed out that only approximately four of 14+ chapters were on the internet. Would you please clarify whether or not you have ever received money for a copy of your book, "How to avoid nearsightedness: A scientific study of the normal eye's behavior?" If so, please state how many copies you have sold, and when the last copy was sold. If not, please state how long it has been since you received any money for this book. 11. Do you believe that it is dishonest NOT to mention that you have a commercial interest in inducing people to visit your website? 12. Presuming that you understand the difference between accommodative spasm (pseudomyopia) and axial-length myopia, would you please provide credible proof that either a) pseudomyopia CAUSES axial-length myopia, or that b) relieving pseudomyopia REDUCES axial-length myopia 13. You CONSTANTLY make reference to "Second Opinion" optometrists--presumably meaning those who share your views. Other than the now-infamous Steve Leung, are there ANY OTHER such "second opinion optometrists" in the ENTIRE WORLD? Does any of these people have any evidence to support the claims that you make? Would you please provide it? 14. Mr. Steve Leung is also trying to sell a book. Do you have any economic interest in the book sold by Steve Leung? Do you think it is honest NOT to mention that Mr. Leung is--in truth--myopic, that he is trying to sell a book, and that the "testimonials" on his website, and your repeated referrals TO his website are used as inducements to sell both your and his book? 15. Do you feel that it is HONEST NOT TO admit that--even though your niece, Joy, NEVER WORE MINUS LENSES, and DID USE PLUS LENSES, she is, at this time, a myope? I don't attack those who advocate "prevention." In fact, I have talked about prevention on many, many occasions. I only attack charlatans who post on this NG. DrG > explain why my optometrist never said anything about natural vision > improvement or the plus lens Because there's no evidence it works, except for accommodative myopia. If that isn't good enough, then it's because every pediatrician will tell parents the optometrist is practicing quackery. -MT Sure, and the fluoridation of drinking water has wiped out the dental profession...NOT. Sheesh! DrG Dear Ace, Subject: What do parents who are ODs do to PROTECT their children's DISTANT vision? Brooks occassionaly stumbles into a good question. (Like 1,000 monkeys typing Hamlet.) So let us evaluate it: Brooks> And to my other major point: if this really were a vast ocular conspiracy (think about the dental analogy), Otis> This is of course simple bull S__t. The OD has the requirement to make a person's vision very, very, sharp -- and that is exactly what he does, no more and no less. That is knee-jerk simple. We have reviewed the FUNCTIONAL training it takes to do that. In fact, ANY OD who steps out of "line" with that grinding routine will have "charges" filed againt him, witness Neil D. Brooks, filing charges against me -- because I recommended that you be informed of a competent second-opinion on prevention as suggested and supplied by: www.chinamyopia.org Brooks> then the Optometrists would have to knowingly sacrifice their OWN children just to maintain the cover story. Otis> That is interesting -- and ASSUMES a great deal. Otis> The reality is that the M.O. ODs on sci.med.vision will put their own children into a strong minus -- because they BELIEVE that a minus lens has no effect on the fundamental eye (monkey-primate, or human-primate). Otis> But there is a percentage (small) of ODs who recognize the scientific truth in the primate studies, and will insist that their own chidren BEGIN WEARING A STRONG PLUS WHEN THE KIDS REFRACTIVE STATE GETS DOWN TO ZERO DIOPTERS. Otis> This, as it turns out, is how a second-opinion developes in a field as "conventional" as medicine. Otis> But I certainly agree as to the difficulties of true-prevention, and it takes a strong will on the part of the parent and child to properly implement this preventive method. Best, Otis Likely? IDon'tThinkSo.... > Dear Ace, YOU still love me, right? > Brooks occassionaly stumbles into a good question. But you still don't answer them. Here they are again. I invite you to answer them. 1. There seems to be a great deal of evidence that primates have widely differing visual systems. How is it that you feel so secure in saying that "all primate eyes" behave similarly ... in ANY regard? 2. In these monkey studies that you reference, isn't it true that the SAME STUDIES showed that, with even BRIEF periods away from the minus lens, the myopia was prevented? 3. If there was no medical indication that these monkeys needed corrective lenses at all, can you be sure that appropriate CORRECTION of somebody's REFRACTIVE ERROR will have similar results? If so, how? 4. You continually claim that a minus lens causes something that you call "stair-case myopia." Presuming that you mean that it does this in humans, can you cite your source for this claim? 5. You have repeatedly claimed that the Oakley-Young study is "proof" of this "stair-case myopia" phenomenon, but Oakley-Young only establishes that-in some people-myopia can get worse over time. It doesn't even CLAIM that a minus lens CAUSES this. Please explain your position. 6. Also-at least in part, based on the Oakley-Young study-you recommend that people use plus lenses to prevent myopia. Are you aware that the only people in the Oakley-Young study for whom plus lenses made ANY difference were those with diagnosed "near-point esophoria?" This is a convergence disorder. Do you have ANY EVIDENCE that the same result is likely with people who DO NOT HAVE this convergence disorder? 7. You claim to have known Donald Rehm, the founder of the International Myopia Prevention Association, for some decades. I presume that you are familiar with his FDA petition. In it, Mr. Rehm states: [quote]"A percentage of children may have difficulty "accepting" a large add because of the strong linkage in the human visual system between accommodation and convergence (turning the eyes inward when looking at something close). As a viewed object approaches the eyes, accommodation and convergence increase in proportion to each other. Over thousands of years, the brain has learned that this is the normal situation. Consequently, accommodation stimulates convergence and vice versa. Thus, if we converge without accommodating the appropriate amount, or if we accommodate without converging the appropriate amount, problems can develop for this small percentage of children such as eye fatigue, double vision, or other types of fusion problems. That is, the two images can no longer be fused together without discomfort. Normal binocular vision is interfered with."[/quote] [b]Is there a valid reason why you have not attempted to make people aware of these SERIOUS risks of unprescribed plus lenses?[/b] 8. You continually cite Fred Deakins as a (questionable) success story. Do you think it is honest NOT to mention that Mr. Deakins is--in truth--myopic, that he is trying to sell a $40.00 product, and that his "testimonial" is used as an inducement to buy this product? 9. Do you have any economic interest in the product sold by Mr. Deakins? 10. You claimed that you were not selling a book--until, that is, I provided links to websites where it WAS being sold for $24.95 (with your home address as the "send check to" address). You then claimed that the entire book was available for free on the internet--until, that its--I pointed out that only approximately four of 14+ chapters were on the internet. Would you please clarify whether or not you have ever received money for a copy of your book, "How to avoid nearsightedness: A scientific study of the normal eye's behavior?" If so, please state how many copies you have sold, and when the last copy was sold. If not, please state how long it has been since you received any money for this book. 11. Do you believe that it is dishonest NOT to mention that you have a commercial interest in inducing people to visit your website? 12. Presuming that you understand the difference between accommodative spasm (pseudomyopia) and axial-length myopia, would you please provide credible proof that either a) pseudomyopia CAUSES axial-length myopia, or that b) relieving pseudomyopia REDUCES axial-length myopia 13. You CONSTANTLY make reference to "Second Opinion" optometrists--presumably meaning those who share your views. Other than the now-infamous Steve Leung, are there ANY OTHER such "second opinion optometrists" in the ENTIRE WORLD? Does any of these people have any evidence to support the claims that you make? Would you please provide it? 14. Mr. Steve Leung is also trying to sell a book. Do you have any economic interest in the book sold by Steve Leung? Do you think it is honest NOT to mention that Mr. Leung is--in truth--myopic, that he is trying to sell a book, and that the "testimonials" on his website, and your repeated referrals TO his website are used as inducements to sell both your and his book? 15. Do you feel that it is HONEST NOT TO admit that--even though your niece, Joy, NEVER WORE MINUS LENSES, and DID USE PLUS LENSES, she is, at this time, a myope? > Please explain in detail exactly HOW you are > now PREVENTING the development > on a negative state -- other > than ATTACKING those people and > ODs who advocate it???? Because there are promising treatments that are known to work. There's no believable evidence that your therapy works. -MT Dear Mike, I never described preventing the development of a negative refractive STATE as "therapy", nor, from these discussions, would it ever be possible for you to "prescribe" prevention. But as we have seen, when the educated PARENT (who is an optometist) looks as ALL THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, and makes his own PERSONAL judgment about PROTECTING his child's distant vision, then the answer FOR HIM is that PROTECTIVE PLUS. That is why I described is the SECOND-OPINION. Certainly not YOUR OPINION. And from Quick's remarks about his own children, he would effectively prohibit ANYONE from attempting to help his kids with plus-prevention. And I am certain that the parents of the 87 percent of the Hong Kong students made the SAME JUDGMENT as Quick has made -- with (in the future) exactly the same result. Best, Otis > Dear Mike, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > then the answer FOR HIM is that PROTECTIVE > PLUS. You're such a blithering idiot. That's still one guy IN THE ENTIRE WORLD--Steve Leung--and HE has no evidence that it works ... OR that it's safe. > And from Quick's remarks about his own children, he > would effectively prohibit ANYONE from attempting > to help his kids with plus-prevention. Yeah, Mister President: we're either with you or we're with the terrorists. Thanks for clearing that up. > But as we have seen, when the educated > PARENT (who is an optometist) looks [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > then the answer FOR HIM is that PROTECTIVE > PLUS. Maybe you can tell us where the efficacy studies are published. -MT > You forgot myopia prevention. Optometrists will be needed there as > well. Absurd!-- optometrists will never seriously address myopia prevention -- for one thing they are not qualified for research, and for another, myopia is their bread and butter. -- Dicky Dear Dicky, BINGO! But is must be also said that relatively few people have an interest in "protecting" their distant vision with PREVENTIVE methods. THAT issue should be the subject between a second-opinion optometrist like Steve Leung, and the parents who will ACCEPT the idea that their child will be using the plus for TRUE-PREVENTION. Best, Otis > Dear Dicky, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > that their child will be using the plus > for TRUE-PREVENTION. Even IF the great Vast Ocular Conspiracy is true, Otis, it doesn't eliminate the burden that's upon you to answer the following questions about both you and your hypothesis. Why has it been impossible to get direct answers from you, I wonder.... 1. There seems to be a great deal of evidence that primates have widely differing visual systems. How is it that you feel so secure in saying that "all primate eyes" behave similarly ... in ANY regard? 2. In these monkey studies that you reference, isn't it true that the SAME STUDIES showed that, with even BRIEF periods away from the minus lens, the myopia was prevented? 3. If there was no medical indication that these monkeys needed corrective lenses at all, can you be sure that appropriate CORRECTION of somebody's REFRACTIVE ERROR will have similar results? If so, how? 4. You continually claim that a minus lens causes something that you call "stair-case myopia." Presuming that you mean that it does this in humans, can you cite your source for this claim? 5. You have repeatedly claimed that the Oakley-Young study is "proof" of this "stair-case myopia" phenomenon, but Oakley-Young only establishes that-in some people-myopia can get worse over time. It doesn't even CLAIM that a minus lens CAUSES this. Please explain your position. 6. Also-at least in part, based on the Oakley-Young study-you recommend that people use plus lenses to prevent myopia. Are you aware that the only people in the Oakley-Young study for whom plus lenses made ANY difference were those with diagnosed "near-point esophoria?" This is a convergence disorder. Do you have ANY EVIDENCE that the same result is likely with people who DO NOT HAVE this convergence disorder? 7. You claim to have known Donald Rehm, the founder of the International Myopia Prevention Association, for some decades. I presume that you are familiar with his FDA petition. In it, Mr. Rehm states: [quote]"A percentage of children may have difficulty "accepting" a large add because of the strong linkage in the human visual system between accommodation and convergence (turning the eyes inward when looking at something close). As a viewed object approaches the eyes, accommodation and convergence increase in proportion to each other. Over thousands of years, the brain has learned that this is the normal situation. Consequently, accommodation stimulates convergence and vice versa. Thus, if we converge without accommodating the appropriate amount, or if we accommodate without converging the appropriate amount, problems can develop for this small percentage of children such as eye fatigue, double vision, or other types of fusion problems. That is, the two images can no longer be fused together without discomfort. Normal binocular vision is interfered with."[/quote] Is there a valid reason why you have not attempted to make people aware of these SERIOUS risks of unprescribed plus lenses? 8. You continually cite Fred Deakins as a (questionable) success story. Do you think it is honest NOT to mention that Mr. Deakins is--in truth--myopic, that he is trying to sell a $40.00 product, and that his "testimonial" is used as an inducement to buy this product? 9. Do you have any economic interest in the product sold by Mr. Deakins? 10. You claimed that you were not selling a book--until, that is, I provided links to websites where it WAS being sold for $24.95 (with your home address as the "send check to" address). You then claimed that the entire book was available for free on the internet--until, that its--I pointed out that only approximately four of 14+ chapters were on the internet. Would you please clarify whether or not you have ever received money for a copy of your book, "How to avoid nearsightedness: A scientific study of the normal eye's behavior?" If so, please state how many copies you have sold, and when the last copy was sold. If not, please state how long it has been since you received any money for this book. 11. Do you believe that it is dishonest NOT to mention that you have a commercial interest in inducing people to visit your website? 12. Presuming that you understand the difference between accommodative spasm (pseudomyopia) and axial-length myopia, would you please provide credible proof that either a) pseudomyopia CAUSES axial-length myopia, or that b) relieving pseudomyopia REDUCES axial-length myopia 13. You CONSTANTLY make reference to "Second Opinion" optometrists--presumably meaning those who share your views. Other than the now-infamous Steve Leung, are there ANY OTHER such "second opinion optometrists" in the ENTIRE WORLD? Does any of these people have any evidence to support the claims that you make? Would you please provide it? 14. Mr. Steve Leung is also trying to sell a book. Do you have any economic interest in the book sold by Steve Leung? Do you think it is honest NOT to mention that Mr. Leung is--in truth--myopic, that he is trying to sell a book, and that the "testimonials" on his website, and your repeated referrals TO his website are used as inducements to sell both your and his book? 15. Do you feel that it is HONEST NOT TO admit that--even though your niece, Joy, NEVER WORE MINUS LENSES, and DID USE PLUS LENSES, she is, at this time, a myope? Dr "G" or "L", states that he is FOR PREVENTION. Let him explain EXACTLY WHAT HE MEANS BY THAT STATEMENT. Steve Leung OD -- is FOR PREVENTION. You don't like "prevention"??? Tough! But Steve has an obligation to EXPLAIN his rationale for preveniton -- and THAT REQUIRES A BOOK -- ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. So now you CONDEM Steve Leung for writing a book to explain prevention with the plus??? You have a very narrow mind indeed. And you ATTACK PEOPLE WHO ADVOCATE PREVENTION. And would attack Dr. G if he supported prvention also -- and wrote a book about it?? 14. Mr. Steve Leung is also trying to sell a book. Do you have any economic interest in the book sold by Steve Leung? Do you think it is honest NOT to mention that Mr. Leung is--in truth--myopic, that he is trying to sell a book, and that the "testimonials" on his website, and your repeated referrals TO his website are used as inducements to sell both your and his book? [nothing] You didn't even ANSWER the one question that you quoted ... and you snipped the other 14. Is there any particular reason that it seems impossible to get you to answer these questions?? I think everybody here understands what Optometrists do for a living. I think it's less clear (because ... well ... you've lied about it for a long time) that YOU, Steve Leung, and Fred Deakins (to name a few) have a profit motive, too ;-) Please answer the questions, Uncle Otie. Inquiring minds DO want to know.... I'm ashamed to admit that the posts 7 through 20 flew right over my head; I wasn't really able to find/understand anything that helped me know if optometry is expected to grow or diminish. You may need to "dumb-down" your answers for me, if you wouldn't mind. Thank you so much. I hope I'm not a bother. Nick > I'm ashamed to admit that the posts 7 through 20 flew right over my > head; I wasn't really able to find/understand anything that helped me > know if optometry is expected to grow or diminish. You may need to > "dumb-down" your answers for me, if you wouldn't mind. Thank you so > much. I hope I'm not a bother. > Nick Nick the discussion has gone off on a tangent - don't worry too much about it. The answer to your question is that optometry won't diminish. It will grow, or at very worst, maintain status quo. Dom Thanks Dom, I appreciate it! Dear Nick, The reality is that optometry is going to grow by a huge amount. The reason can be found in the statistics. In Singapore, 85 precent of the high school students are nearsighed. On Taiwan, 95 percent of the medical students are myopic. If you want a "growing" field -- then that would be thing to look at. Best, Otis > In Singapore, 85 precent of the high school > students are nearsighed. > > On Taiwan, 95 percent of the medical > students are myopic. Dear Nick, Please disregard Otis's postings as he will not provide proof of what he says. Otis, PLEASE PROVIDE PROOF OF WHAT YOU SAY ABOVE. I bet you won't or cannot as usual. Allen > > In Singapore, 85 precent of the high school > > students are nearsighed. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Allen Otis> In Singapore, 85 precent of the high school > students are nearsighed. Otis> On Taiwan, 95 percent of the medical > students are myopic. Dear Nick, Please disregard Otis's postings as he will not provide proof of what he says. Otis, PLEASE PROVIDE PROOF OF WHAT YOU SAY ABOVE. Otis> Certainly, be glad to. Please read the evaluations provided below. I bet you won't or cannot as usual. Otis> Bet I can't??? Or will not?? Try reading the reports -- if you can get that through your brain. Allen +++++++++++++++++++++++ MYOPIA PREVALENCE IS ALWAYS HIGHER THAN 90 PERCENT FOR TAIWAN MEDICAL STUDENTS Re: Changes in ocular refraction and its components among medical students - a 5-year longitudinal study", Optom. Vis. Sci., 73:495-498, 1996) found that in a study of 345 National Taiwan University medical students, the myopia prevalence increased from 92.8% to 95.8%! over the five year period. ****************** 1) In Singapore, the vision of 421,116 males between the ages of 15 and 25 was examined. In 1974-84, 26.3% were myopic; in 1987-91, 43.3% were myopic. Both the prevalence and severity of myopia were higher as the level of education increased. The prevalence rate was 15.4% in males with no formal education and increased steadily through the education levels to reach 65.1% among the university graduates in 1987-91. The authors state that their findings confirm indications from other sources that the association between the prevalence and severity of myopia and education attainment is real (M.T. Tay, K.G. Au Eong, C.Y. Ng and M.K. Lim, "Myopia and Educational Attainment in 421,116 Young Singaporean Males," Ann Acad Med Singapore, 1992, Nov;21(6):785-91). 2) Regarding the prevalence of myopia in Asian countries, Lam and Goh (Lam, C.S. and Goh, W.S., "The incidence of refractive errors among schoolchildren in Hong Kong in relationship with the optical components", Clin. Exp. Optom., 74:97-103, 1991) found that in 383 school children from ages 6 to 17 years, the prevalence of myopia increased from 30% at ages 6-7 years, to 70% at ages 16-17 years. 3) Lam and Yap (Lam, C.S. and Yap, M. "Ocular dimensions and refraction in Chinese Orientals", Proc. Int. Soc. Eye Res., 6:121, 1990) found that in a group of optometry students at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, the prevalence of myopia was 75% in females and 69% in males. 4) Goh and Lam (Goh, W.S. and Lam, C.S., "Changes in refractive trends and optical components of Hong Kong Chinese aged 19-39 years," Ophthal. Physiol. Opt., 14:378-382, 1994) found that in 2000 first-year students at the University of Hong Kong, the prevalence of myopia was 87.5%. 5) Lin et al (Lin, L.-K, Chen, C.J., Hung, P.T., and Ko, L.S., "National- wide survey of myopia among schoolchildren in Taiwan, Acta Ophthalmol.", 185:29-33, 1988) found that in a national survey of children in Taiwan, the prevalence of myopia was over 70%. 6) Lin et al (Lin, L.K., Shih, Y.F., Lee, Y.C., Hung, P.T., and Hou, P.K., " Changes in ocular refraction and its components among medical students - a 5-year longitudinal study", Optom. Vis. Sci., 73:495-498, 1996) found that in a study of 345 National Taiwan University medical students, the myopia prevalence increased from 92.8% to 95.8%! over the five year period. 7) A recent study in Hong Kong showed what other studies have shown - wearing less than a full correction will slow the progress of the myopia. Children selected for the study were between the ages of 9 and 12. All were nearsighted, with 1.00 to 5.00 D of myopia. The children were separated into three groups. Each group was given a different type of eyeglasses to wear for the two-year period of the study. The first group wore single vision lenses with a full correction; the second group wore progressive lenses with a +1.50 add; the third group wore progressive lenses with a +2.00 add. All children were examined at 6-month intervals to check the progression of their myopia. Sixty-eight children completed the study. As expected, more undercorrection meant slower myopia progression. Minus vision lenses: - 1.23 D increase (2 years) Progressive lenses with +1.50 add: - 0.76 D increase (2 years) Progressive lenses with +2.00 add: - 0.66 D increase (2 years) Source: Leung JT, Brown B. Progression of myopia in Hong Kong Chinese schoolchildren is slowed by wearing progressive lenses. Optom Vis Sci 1999; 76:346, 354. Published 10/07/00. ++++++++++++++++++++++++ December 6, 2000 By Liu Shao-hua Staff reporter Taipei Times Subject: Myopia Increases Among Children One of every five children in the first grade in Taiwan's elementary schools is myopic (nearsighted). The proportion of myopics in this group has increased from 12.1 percent in 1995 to 20.4 percent this year, according to the results of a survey released by the Department of Health yesterday. The results also show that 60.7 percent of sixth graders in elementary schools, 80.7 percent of third graders in junior high schools, and 84.2 percent of third graders in senior high schools suffer from myopia. In addition, the number of seriously myopic children is also on the rise. The proportion of seriously myopic children among sixth graders in elementary schools has increased from 2 percent five years ago to 2.4 percent this year. Serious myopia is defined as exceeding 600 degrees (6 diopters). Anything over 25 degrees (0.25 diopters) is myopia. Normal eyesight is zero degrees. "We appeal for reductions to children's work load in schools and the amelioration of visual environments in daily life," said Chen Tzay-jinn, director-general of the health promotion bureau, under the health department. The survey was conducted by the department, in cooperation with National Taiwan University and its hospital, and involved a sample of 12,000 students from four million students between the ages of 7 and 18 nationwide. Myopia has been on the increase in Taiwan ever since the first myopia survey in 1983. The department manages the survey every four or five years. The growth of nearsightedness among young children is thought to result from learning to read very young and using computers very young, Chen pointed out. Last year, the department and the Ministry of Education delivered official documents to kindergartens nationwide demanding that children not be taught to read or use computers too early. "But many teachers and parents protested against this appeal," said the department officials. "They questioned exactly what they were permitted to teach if reading was not allowed." "We do hope that parents and teachers can heighten their awareness of myopia and understand that early learning does not guarantee students' performance in the future, but it does bear a strong correlation to defects in vision," Chen said. The department also appealed for children under the age of 10 not to be taught how to use computers. Senior high school students suffer the highest rates of nearsightedness, at over 84 percent. "It reached a plateau five years ago and has not changed this year. But their myopia has become more serious," Chen said. According to the survey, 20 percent of third graders in senior high schools are seriously nearsighted. Many people thought operations could cure myopia. "But the superficial improvement of vision does not better the health of the eye. More importantly, it might reduce people's awareness of other problems associated with nearsightedness, apart from visual ones," said Lin Lung-kuang, ophthalmology professor at National Taiwan University. "Myopia cannot be cured. We have to prevent children from becoming nearsighted. Don't let them use their vision too early," Lin urged. Because of the public's lack of awareness of myopia, the department estimated its prevalence would continue to grow. "Singapore resembles Taiwan in many respects and the extent of its myopia problem might serve as a warning for us," Chen said. > ones," said Lin Lung-kuang, ophthalmology professor at National > Taiwan University. "Myopia cannot be cured. We have to prevent > children from becoming nearsighted. Don't let them use their > vision too early," Lin urged. A modest proposal. -MT >> ones," said Lin Lung-kuang, ophthalmology professor at >> National Taiwan University. "Myopia cannot be cured. >> We have to prevent children from becoming nearsighted. >> Don't let them use their vision too early," Lin urged. > > A modest proposal. My boys are 6 and 7. I'm thinking of taking off the blind folds next year... -Quick Dear Quick, Good luck with your kids. Oh, and one correction. I stated 85 percent Singapore kids. It was 87 percent Hong-Kong kids -- entering the first year of college. But I am certain that the parents of those kids are thinking, boy MY KIDS are NOT going to become part of those 87 percent, not at all. That will always be some one elses problem. Think again -- with all due respect. ----------------- 4) Goh and Lam (Goh, W.S. and Lam, C.S., "Changes in refractive trends and optical components of Hong Kong Chinese aged 19-39 years," Ophthal. Physiol. Opt., 14:378-382, 1994) found that in 2000 first-year students at the University of Hong Kong, the prevalence of myopia was 87.5%. > > ones," said Lin Lung-kuang, ophthalmology professor at National > > Taiwan University. "Myopia cannot be cured. We have to prevent > > children from becoming nearsighted. Don't let them use their > > vision too early," Lin urged. > > A modest proposal. ...and a Swift reply.... As in "Johnthan" I see that we have hit a raw nerve with Otis and his sycophant. Otis obviously wants to have a monopoly on prevention and doesn't like the idea that optometrists might actually be able to make it happen. DrG >I see that we have hit a raw nerve with Otis and his sycophant. Otis >obviously wants to have a monopoly on prevention and doesn't like the >idea that optometrists might actually be able to make it happen. - G-d needs his devil. - Democracy needs its [pick one]: ...Russian bear ...Red Stain of Communism ...Axis of Evil ...Radical Islam Conspiracy theorists need their arch-enemy. His entire schtick [1] depends on his ability to convince the weak and ill-informed that you ODs are the Dispensaries of Dioptric Death and that He Alone can save them. It's funny that he's fairly mum now where educated people play (s.m.v.), but that his new lair is a nesting place for relatively desperate and scared adolescents and pre-adolescents.... There oughtta' be a law.... Meanwhile, you should take a few minutes and watch the party on that "Vision Improvement Site" below. I've gotten numerous Private Messages from the participants, as they drift away, saying, "You're right. The emperor DOES have no clothes (apologize for any unintentional imagery....)" [1] http://www.visionimprovementsite.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=testing;action= display;num=1145045918 OR http://tinyurl.com/q29hg > Absurd!-- optometrists will never seriously address myopia prevention -- > for one thing they are not qualified for research, and for another, myopia > is their bread and butter. Why not remove your head from a dark place and pickup a few journals or do some searches on PubMed, and you would find that your statement is utterly ridiculous? DrG Regardless of the validity of Otis' numbers regarding myopia among the 2 aforementioned groups, there is some truth to what he says in that there has been an increase in many populations in the incidence of myopia. If some form of proven myopia prevention were discovered you would not see a diminishing in the optometry profession so much as a paraadigm shift in standard of care and treatment delivery. In denitstry, we have seen a shift from classic "drill & fill" to more prevention and esthetics. The incidence of dental decay has gone down due to better techniques and understandings regarding prevention and care. This has led to an evolution in the profession to now having people living longer and holding on to their teeth longer. We do more cosmetic dentistry and periodontal treatment now then ever before as a result. I feel optometry will go the same route as new understandings and therapies emerge. > Regardless of the validity of Otis' numbers regarding myopia among the > 2 aforementioned groups, there is some truth to what he says in that [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > result. I feel optometry will go the same route as new understandings > and therapies emerge. Of course, you're right and, of course, this is one of the myriad ... uh ... flaws in Otis's ... uh ... "thinking." And to my other major point: if this really were a vast ocular conspiracy (think about the dental analogy), then the Optometrists would have to knowingly sacrifice their OWN children just to maintain the cover story. Likely? IDon'tThinkSo.... Look at this: http://tinyurl.com/z86nr - just posts #1 and #2 Otis will be dead before he comes to this position, BUT ... it's a reasonable summation of what's known to be true and what's known not to be true. Are there absolutes in all of this? Not really, but there are some pretty strong, "The scientific evidence is vast and contradicts your belief" arguments to be made. OTOH, he offers none. None. None. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.