 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / August 2007How can I consider the optometry a science if
There are more and more complications from wearing contacts lens, with introducing new contacts lens products. There are hundreds of completed and ongoing research showing the harm causing by soft contacts lenses (microbial keratitis, papillary conjunctivitis, bulbar conjunctival changes, epithelial keratopathy, corneal neovascularization, nonmicrobial corneal infiltrates, and corneal warpage. Endothelial polymegathism, pleomorphism. Progressive corneal epithelium and stroma thinning.) I know, that there are many good optometrist, who really do their job, helping people. What I can not understand, how some of them, knowing all of the above can conduct research like below and make that type of recomendations: CONTACT LENSES A GOOD CHOICE FOR CHILDREN 12 AND YOUNGER COLUMBUS , Ohio - Children 8 to 12 years old are just as adept as teenagers at handling and wearing contact lenses. "Optometrists traditionally don't prescribe contact lenses to children until they are at least 12 years old," said Jeffrey Walline, an assistant professor of optometry at Ohio State University. "But we found that younger children are just as responsible with their lenses." http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/kidviz.htm > There are more and more complications from wearing contacts lens, with > introducing new contacts lens products. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > corneal neovascularization, nonmicrobial corneal infiltrates, and > corneal warpage. Endothelial polymegathism, pleomorphism. What an impressive list of medical jargon. Do you know what any of it means? The fact is that contact lenses are far, far safer now than they ever have been. As with any medical device, there are risks, and those risks are largely avoidable with proper care. Unfortunately, the public has been lulled into believing that there are NO risks associated with contact lenses. Some people believe that regular eye exams should not be required for obtaining them. >> There are more and more complications from wearing contacts lens, with >> introducing new contacts lens products. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >What an impressive list of medical jargon. Do you know what any of it >means? “It has been reported that as many as 60% of the population reports symptoms of dry eye.” Not precise enough.. In average less then 20% of populations reports one or more symptoms of dry eye present at least often. http://www.tearfilm.org/content/epidemiologydes.pdf, etc,etc. Personally, I prefer eye drops with preservatives. ??? > There are more and more complications from wearing contacts lens, with > introducing new contacts lens products. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > found that younger children are just as responsible with their > lenses."http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/kidviz.htm why did you post this? you have no concept about the safety and efficacy of contact lenses. >> There are more and more complications from wearing contacts lens, with >> introducing new contacts lens products. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >why did you post this? you have no concept about the safety and >efficacy of contact lenses. C'est la vie Provided you have any concept of French. > There are more and more complications from wearing contacts lens, with > introducing new contacts lens products. This is false. Per wearer, the incidence of keratitis and corneal ulcer has _decreased_ in the past 20 years. Frequent replacement is the biggest factor explaining the decrease, and silicone hydrogels have also had an effect. Since your opening premise is false, the rest of your rant must be reworked. -MT > > There are more and more complications from wearing contacts lens, with > > introducing new contacts lens products. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > -MT For anybody who doesn't know this, or hasn't figured it out by now: "Lena" is a sort of demigod to Otis (why??), and comes to s.m.v. BY WAY OF Otis's little website. It can be presumed that he coaxed her into coming here -- as he frequently does with others -- in an effort to gain further support for his ill thought notions and patent dishonesty. >For anybody who doesn't know this, or hasn't figured it out by now: >"Lena" is a sort of demigod to Otis (why??), and comes to s.m.v. BY [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >frequently does with others -- in an effort to gain further support >for his ill thought notions and patent dishonesty. It was different. First I’ve found medKB.Vision, then walking through the posts found somebody’s nice reference (with a lot of critics) to Otis group. >Since your opening premise is false, the rest of your rant must be reworked. > >-MT Reworked: >> There are more and more complications from wearing contacts lens, with >> introducing new contacts lens products. >This is false. Per wearer, the incidence of keratitis and corneal ulcer has >_decreased_ in the past 20 years. Yes, opening statement is FALSE. Per wearer- agree Reworked : Total incidence of keratitis increased . >Frequent replacement is the biggest factor >explaining the decrease, Agree >and silicone hydrogels have also had an effect. silicone hydrogels, .They are better , but 1.Research group at Berkeley (2006): “ There was a substantial decrease in to epithelial barrier function (EBF). EBF during 30-day CW with Si-H lenses, compared with GP lenses. “[1] 2. Deposition of lizosomes and lipids SH deposit lower level of lizosom and higher Level of lipids than ionic contact lens materials. . SH materials deposit only small amounts of lysozyme, the degree of lysozyme denaturation that occurs is higher relative to that seen on ionic lens materials.[2] 3. “Results: During the survey period, 80 and 38 patients presented with NSK and SK, respectively. The annual incidences (cases per 10 000 wearers) for each wearing modality and lens type were: DW rigid—NSK 5.7, SK 2.9; DW hydrogel daily disposable—NSK 9.1, SK 4.9; DW hydrogel (excluding daily disposable)—NSK 14.1, SK 6.4; DW silicone hydrogel—NSK 55.9, SK 0.0; EW rigid—NSK 0.0, SK 0.0; EW hydrogel—NSK 48.2, SK 96.4; EW silicone hydrogel—NSK 98.8, SK 19.8. The difference in SK between EW hydrogel and EW silicone hydrogel was significant (p = 0.04).”[3] I am not trying to prove here statement “contacts are bad “ Or"how much better is silicone hydrogels vs … “ I DO NOT THINK that it is ETHICAL to conduct even that type of research, pushing to use contacts in small 8, 9,10 years old children ! [1] The Effect of 30-Day Continuous Wear on Corneal Epithelial Barrier Function: Gas-Permeable vs. Silicone Hydrogel LensesMeng C. Lin, OD, PhD, FAAO; Tan Truong, OD; Thao Yeh, BS; Carol Hsiao, OD; Guang Wei, BS; Audrey V. Louis, BS; Kenneth A. Polse, OD, MS http://spectacle.berkeley.edu/pdf/crc_pdfs/crc-aao2006/crc-aao-poster2006_cw-pdc.pdf [2] Lysozyme and Lipid Deposition on Silicone Hydrogel Contact Lens Materials. Eye & Contact Lens: Science & Clinical Practice. 29(1) Supplement 1:S75-S79, January 2003. Jones, Lyndon Ph.D., F.C.Optom.; Senchyna, Michelle Ph.D.; Glasier, Mary-Ann M.S.; Schickler, Jillian B.S.; Forbes, Iain B.S.; Louie, Derek M.S.; May, Christopher B.S. [3] Incidence of keratitis of varying severity among contact lens wearers P B Morgan1, N Efron1, E A Hill1, M K Raynor2, M A Whiting2, A B Tullo2 Lena > I DO NOT THINK that it is ETHICAL to conduct even that type of research, > pushing to use contacts in small 8, 9,10 years old children ! I don't think it's ethical for you to make decisions for everyone else. -MT >> I DO NOT THINK that it is ETHICAL to conduct even that type of research, >> pushing to use contacts in small 8, 9,10 years old children ! > >I don't think it's ethical for you to make decisions for everyone else. > >-MT Unfortunately, decision are not up to me. It is opinion. They just want word to be better place. They just conduct research. They run trial on children. The conclusion is the children are smart enough. Does anybody here have any doubt in that ? I am not. Sure, they did not have any third party funds. At least they should make honest warning that they do not know how long wearing will influence the child’s eye development. And if it worse it to subject CHILDREN to some kind if risk. It is low scientific level report, it is just promotion. Lena, MS Physics,MS Computer Science > They just conduct research. > They run trial on children. The conclusion is the children are smart > enough. Does anybody here have any doubt in that ? No, the conclusion is not that children are smart enough. There are very clear regulations regarding the use of children as subjects. Perhaps you should learn them before you criticize the ethics of those that properly employ them.  SignatureScott Reverse name to reply > > They just conduct research. > > They run trial on children. The conclusion is the children are smart [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > should learn them before you criticize the ethics of those that properly > employ them. As I mentioned ... Lena comes to us by way of Otis. Whatever her background ... whatever her education ... whatever her particular area of expertise ... you had to expect that she would at least TEND to start with a conclusion in mind, and then fabricate facts IN SUPPORT OF that conclusion. Otherwise ... what WOULD she and Otis talk about? To pclar: Thank you very much for explained. On Aug 22, 10:15 am, Scott Seidman <namdiestt...@mindspring.com> wrote: > No, the conclusion is not that children are smart enough. There are very > clear regulations regarding the use of children as subjects. Perhaps you [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Scott > Reverse name to reply It is not a legal issues or "properly employ regulations" That type of research turn on green light for using contacts in small children. Then it will became common practice. Does it worse it if at least couple , only couple of kids will have severe keratitis and even partial vision lost ? I do not mean that trial, I mean if it will become common. Why we need multiple incidences of keratitis? Just one or two children is not enough ? At 8 they can manage contacts but can not make decision if they want that risk, as adults do. > Does it worse it if at least couple , only couple of kids will have > severe keratitis and even partial vision lost ? I do not mean that > trial, I mean if it will become common. > Why we need multiple incidences of keratitis? Just one or two > children is not enough ? no one gets keratitis resulting in vision loss from their contacts unless they do something stupid like never take them out for months. you really don't know what you are talking about. contact lenses are definitely NOT A PROBLEM when it comes to the public health. they are only a problem when idiots start mishandling them and using them in a way that is not recommended. why don't you start arguing for world peace instead of getting so emotional about contact lenses. really, your concern is out of proportion to any problems that there are. On Aug 22, 6:57 pm, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote: > > Does it worse it if at least couple , only couple of kids will have > > severe keratitis and even partial vision lost ? I do not mean that > > trial, I mean if it will become common. > you really don't know what you are talking about. contact lenses are > definitely NOT A PROBLEM when it comes to the public health. they are > only a problem when idiots start mishandling them and using them in a > way that is not recommended. The thing is that the majority of population wash hands, then drop contacts into the think or somewhere else , and only after that isert into the eye. > why don't you start arguing for world peace instead of getting so > emotional about contact lenses. It is probably not a bad idea. > The thing is that the majority of population wash hands, then drop > contacts into the think or somewhere else , and only after that > isert into the eye. You think that happens every time? You think it's the WORST thing people get in their eyes? You think anyone inserts a lens with soap or toothpaste on it TWICE? -MT > > The thing is that the majority of population wash hands, then drop > > contacts into the think or somewhere else , and only after that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > -MT If they are so lucky to catch toothpaste from the first drop the answer - No L > The thing is that the majority of population wash hands, then drop > contacts into the think or somewhere else , and only after that > isert into the eye. Lena -- much like Otis -- is also fond of saying what "every eye doctor" does. I've asked her how it is that she manages to /know/ what every eye doctor does. She hasn't told me yet. I'm curious about how she /knows/ about the lens handling habits of "the majority of the population." Lena, would you like to answer that, or are you just making stuff up in an effort to support a closely held belief ... like Otis? Don't be shy ... and ... don't be dishonest. >I'm curious about how she /knows/ about the lens handling habits of >"the majority of the population." She designed questionnaires and handed them to random samples. Maybe > I DO NOT THINK that it is ETHICAL to conduct even that type of > research, > pushing to use contacts in small 8, 9,10 years old children ! Of course, you're much more qualified to make such an decision than the institutional research subjects review board, without even having read the protocal, consent form, and subject recruitment guidelines. SignatureScott Reverse name to reply Optometry is the health profession, and ophthalmology is the science, is it correct? I know that words what end in 'try' means the health jobs, for example 'dentistry', and also words that ends in 'logy' or 'omy' mean a science for examples 'astrology' or physiology, or 'astronomy', is that right? > Optometry is the health profession, and ophthalmology is the science, > is it correct? no. optometry is a profession ophthalmology is a profession the science is termed "visual science" > Optometry is the health profession, and ophthalmology is the science, > is it correct? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > science for examples 'astrology' or physiology, or 'astronomy', is > that right? No. Optometry and ophthalmology are both health professions. Optometrists, by and large, deal with healthy eyes, glasses and contacts and do not do surgery. Ophthalmolgists are medical doctors with extra training in eye surgery; by and large deal with diseased eyes, do surgery and don't deal with contacts or glasses. But there are exceptions. Both kinds of professionals may also be involved with research at hospitals, at teaching institutions or in industry. Vision scientists may be trained in biology, physics, optics, chemisty, engineering etc and do science only, not patient treatment And many medical specialties use "logy" ie cardiology, oncology, neurology. And physics, optics and chemisty don't end in "logy". Dr Judy Dr Judy <mpace99@rogers.com> wrote in news:1187803815.149223.285610 @q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com: > Vision scientists may be trained in biology, physics, optics, > chemisty, engineering etc and do science only, not patient treatment It's hard to do both medicine and science, but it is done often enough. In fact, there are special NIH programs designed to help dedicated students through the arduous education required to do both. SignatureScott Reverse name to reply Hello, Dr Judy: Thank you very very much for explained. Do you think I can become a neuroophthalmologist and also go in-to the visual science career as well? What is the money I will get per year, please? Is it lots? Is it more than if I be a dentist? Or is dentist the higher paid jobs. Hello, >C'est la vie It means: 'that's life'. I think. > Hello, > > >C'est la vie > > It means: 'that's life'. I think. Hellow, Yes. Lena Hello, Please please can you teach me some more French. >Hello, > >Please please can you teach me some more French. I do't know French good enough. Probably it is I who needs couple of English lessons Look at my “Hellow” Hello, Do not worry, you have very fine English. Just I advise carry on reading this forum. I learnt most of my English by reading the posts on this newsgroup, and using guessworks and observing context and also plenty of using the dictionary, haha. Also you should practice writing posts on this newsgroup very much. Now my English is very good and all my friends and teacher are amazed. Hello, Dr Judy, thank you very much for help. > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > lots? Is it more than if I be a dentist? Or is dentist the higher paid > jobs. Neuro opththalmologists can also be researchers, long training. Don't know how it pays. Dr Judy > > Hello, > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Neuro opththalmologists can also be researchers, long training. Don't > know how it pays. When I took labor economics many years ago, dentistry was the second highest paying career, considering the time value of money. Construction work was number one. > > Optometry is the health profession, and ophthalmology is the science, > > is it correct? [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Dr Judy Dr Judy Well done as usual.Kudos. > I am not trying to prove here statement "contacts are bad " > > Or"how much better is silicone hydrogels vs ... " > > I DO NOT THINK that it is ETHICAL to conduct even that type of research, > pushing to use contacts in small 8, 9,10 years old children ! contact lenses have little if any significant downside to the patient, including children, if worn properly. there is absolutely nothing wrong with fitting young 8-10 year old children with contact lenses if they are mature enough to handle them properly. its great to have your opinion, but its nothing more than an opinion from a layperson who has little idea about the specifics of the things they are talking about. personally, i usually don't go around giving my opinions on subjects i don't know much about because i've found out it can make a person appear quite stupid to those who do. hint. lena102938 <db00qp00@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1187730222.222890.125940 @d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: > There are more and more complications from wearing contacts lens,.. Optometry is an allied health profession, not a science. There are, of course, optometrists that are scientists, and many optometrists have a good understanding of science. SignatureScott Reverse name to reply > There are more and more complications from wearing contacts lens, with > introducing new contacts lens products. Optometry is not a science. Ophthalmology is. Hello, No, optometry and ophthalmology are both medical professions. The science line is called 'visual science'. I know, I thought the same as you too. > > There are more and more complications from wearing contacts lens, with > > introducing new contacts lens products. > > Optometry is not a science. Ophthalmology is. For refference There is things like that: "Professor of Optometry Director of Research and Graduate Studies." "Journal of Optometry." Everybody can have endless debates about terminology here . Journal of Optometry not going to change name. Optometry is a branch of Visual Science >What I can not understand What I cannot understand is why people continue to keep feeding the trolls. <http://tinyurl.com/o7x2q> Hello, What is 'Kudos', please? Does it mean points? |
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.