Great safety program for soft contact lens wearers

When the "fusarium scare" occurred and Bausch and Lomb "Renu with
Moisture Lock" was pulled off the market, B&L was put in a similar
place that the makers of Tylenol were after the great poisoning scare
years back. To build patient compliance and advocate good contact lens
hygiene B&L has created a FREE "Wear & Care" consumer program. When
you go on their website at www.bausch.com and hit the "Wear and Care"
button, you can sign up for a FREE care package that includes 12 free
contact lens cases to encourage monthly case disposal. YOU DON"T HAVE
TO WEAR B&L LENSES to get the free cases. My rep says they have had
80,000 sign up so far, and the more the merrier. So, I encourage
everyone here who wears soft contacts or fits soft contacts to send
everyone to this program.
When cases are clean and hands are clean there are fewer infections and
we all win, not just B&L.

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> When the "fusarium scare" occurred and Bausch and Lomb "Renu with
> Moisture Lock" was pulled off the market, B&L was put in a similar
> place that the makers of Tylenol were after the great poisoning scare
> years back. To build patient compliance and advocate good contact lens
> hygiene B&L has created a FREE "Wear & Care" consumer program. When
> you go on their website at www.bausch.com and hit the "Wear and Care"
> button, you can sign up for a FREE care package that includes 12 free
> contact lens cases to encourage monthly case disposal. YOU DON"T HAVE
> TO WEAR B&L LENSES to get the free cases. My rep says they have had
> 80,000 sign up so far, and the more the merrier. So, I encourage
> everyone here who wears soft contacts or fits soft contacts to send
> everyone to this program.
> When cases are clean and hands are clean there are fewer infections and
> we all win, not just B&L.



Just wondering here, but are RGP wearers affected by this also?

Thanks for that post!

I have just one comment about it. B&L would like people to believe
that the problems with their eyedrops were actually the fault of poor
patient hygiene. A dozen contact lens cases is a bit silly. It pains
me to see a myopic patient wearing glasses. They should be wearing
contact lenses - rigid if they can tolerate them - and consider LASIK
when they can pay for it. Actually.. anybody can pay for it. When
the numbers are crunched, it takes at most 12 years of contact lens or
glasses to equal the cost of LASIK. Also, Lasik is tax deductable -
as are glasses and contacts - but people are not likely to go to the
trouble of deducting their contacts or glasses.. but are likely to
deduct that big lasik payment. The operation is easily financed.

I would like everyone to be wearing rigid contacts if possible. They
are very low maintenance, and provide the best possible vision. It's
unfortunate that so few people are willing to put up with a little
discomfort.


On 1 Jul 2006 08:42:49 -0700, "(E-Mail Removed)"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>When the "fusarium scare" occurred and Bausch and Lomb "Renu with
>Moisture Lock" was pulled off the market, B&L was put in a similar
>place that the makers of Tylenol were after the great poisoning scare
>years back. To build patient compliance and advocate good contact lens
>hygiene B&L has created a FREE "Wear & Care" consumer program. When
>you go on their website at www.bausch.com and hit the "Wear and Care"
>button, you can sign up for a FREE care package that includes 12 free
>contact lens cases to encourage monthly case disposal. YOU DON"T HAVE
>TO WEAR B&L LENSES to get the free cases. My rep says they have had
>80,000 sign up so far, and the more the merrier. So, I encourage
>everyone here who wears soft contacts or fits soft contacts to send
>everyone to this program.
>When cases are clean and hands are clean there are fewer infections and
>we all win, not just B&L.

Ragnar wrote:

> Thanks for that post!
>
> I have just one comment about it. B&L would like people to believe
> that the problems with their eyedrops were actually the fault of poor
> patient hygiene. A dozen contact lens cases is a bit silly. It pains
> me to see a myopic patient wearing glasses. They should be wearing
> contact lenses - rigid if they can tolerate them - and consider LASIK
> when they can pay for it. Actually.. anybody can pay for it. When
> the numbers are crunched, it takes at most 12 years of contact lens or
> glasses to equal the cost of LASIK. Also, Lasik is tax deductable -
> as are glasses and contacts - but people are not likely to go to the
> trouble of deducting their contacts or glasses.. but are likely to
> deduct that big lasik payment. The operation is easily financed.
>
> I would like everyone to be wearing rigid contacts if possible. They
> are very low maintenance, and provide the best possible vision. It's
> unfortunate that so few people are willing to put up with a little
> discomfort.
>

Are you an eye doc?

Thanks for the update. I'm surprised that B&L did not do a press
release on this. We normally get their releases and I had not heard
about this excellent service.

We have added it to our RSS NewsFeed and it is now on our website.

Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
Patient Advocacy Surgeon Certification

"Consider and Choose With Confidence"

Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org

http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org

I am not a doctor.

I don't know why you replied anonymously... you did a good post.

I had not seen the full story about B&L and that solution. Scary
stuff. Which is yet another reason to avoid soft contact lenses.
Rigid lenses can be rinsed off with warm tap water. Those lenses to
not absorb water nor does water adhere to them. Still, one might want
to give them a squirt with some contact lens solution after
thouroughly cleaning them with tap water.

Another issue is that preserved solutions are not healthy for the
eye... yet no preservatives is even more dangerous... so again.. go
for the RGPs




On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 08:13:16 -0700, Anon E. Muss
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 08:35:04 GMT, Ragnar <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>>Thanks for that post!
>>
>>I have just one comment about it. B&L would like people to believe
>>that the problems with their eyedrops were actually the fault of poor
>>patient hygiene.
>
>Are you talking about "eyedrops" or Renu with MoisturLOC?
>
>Have you actually read the conclusions of B&L and the ophthalmic
>community?
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/zgek5>
>
>>A dozen contact lens cases is a bit silly. It pains me to see a
>>myopic patient wearing glasses. They should be wearing contact lenses
>>- rigid if they can tolerate them - and consider LASIK when they can
>>pay for it.
>
>These are silly blanket statements and bad advice for many patients.
>
>[snip]
>
>>I would like everyone to be wearing rigid contacts if possible. They
>>are very low maintenance, and provide the best possible vision. It's
>>unfortunate that so few people are willing to put up with a little
>>discomfort.
>
>Many patients tolerate RGPs successfully. However, while some
>patients with dry eyes do better with RGPs, others can have their dry
>eye condition aggravated by RGPs and don't like to go around with dry
>eyes for *years*. I know from experience -- I did. I wore RGPs for
>over 5 years with constantly dry eyes.
>
>I got sick of it. I didn't do well with HEMA lenses either -- eyes
>got dry with them too.
>
>When silicone hydrogel lenses came out, I moved into them and now get
>comfortable lens wear for 14+ hours on most every day. I never got
>that routinely with RGPs or HEMA SCLs.

I tend to agree with you.... there are many issues involved in
solutions... preservatives vs non-preserved... for instance...
distilled water is not chlorinated.. so distilled water is potentially
a medium for bacteria soup.
And I promise tnot to make a big issure out of this.. even though I
probably should.. but this is a good reason to have LASIK... to be
free of sticking solutions into your eyes. Don't get me started on
the old pretien eating pig pancreatin tablets....


On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 13:03:24 -0700, Anon E. Muss
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 17:47:49 GMT, Ragnar <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>>I had not seen the full story about B&L and that solution. Scary
>>stuff.
>
>I am convinced that these cases wouldn't have occured in any greater
>incidence than patients using other solutions if the patients followed
>proper lens hygiene, care, and obeyed the product instructions. I
>believe that this is the case of a "perfect storm".
>
>IOW, B&L ReNu with MoisturLOC was riskier to use than other solutions
>if you were non-compliant (i.e., basically a lazy slob) with your
>doctor's instructions.
>
>>Which is yet another reason to avoid soft contact lenses.
>
>Wearing ANY contact lenses involve risk. That risk can be minimized
>by following proper lens hygiene and wearing them per your eye
>doctor's instructions. For most people the risk to benefit ratio is
>certainly very acceptable.
>
>>Rigid lenses can be rinsed off with warm tap water. Those lenses to
>>not absorb water nor does water adhere to them. Still, one might want
>>to give them a squirt with some contact lens solution after
>>thouroughly cleaning them with tap water.
>
>Might?
>
>>Another issue is that preserved solutions are not healthy for the
>>eye... yet no preservatives is even more dangerous... so again.. go
>>for the RGPs
>
>Rigid gas permeable contact lenses (RGPs) have advantages and
>disadvantages versus soft contact lenses (SCLs). Eye doctors realize
>this.
>
>For most of my patients, the advantages of SCLs (e.g., initial comfort
>and relatively inexpensive frequent replacement modality)
>overwhelmingly outweigh the advantages of RGPs (e.g., less costly over
>the long run if patient doesn't lose/crack lenses and prescription
>doesn't change).
>
>The "healthier for the eyes" advantage that RGPs had over SCLs is
>pretty much gone with the availability of silicone hydrogel contat
>lenses (SHCLs).
>
>(Yes, there are exceptions to this, like the -12.00DS -3.00DC OU
>patient I had that had nasty limbal neovascularization and microcystic
>edema from daily wear of Hydrasoft Torics and I "forced" into RGPs --
>BTW, it was amazing hoiw much healthier her eyes looked in just the
>course of a couple months! But for the -4.00DS myope, arguing that
>RGPs are healthier than SHCLs if both are worn properly is basically
>untenable.)
>
>When I go over the pros/cons of RGPs versus SCLs (which in 6/2006 is
>SHCLs easily 95% of the time), the vast majority of my patients choose
>SCLs.

On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 20:19:07 GMT, Ragnar <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>I tend to agree with you.... there are many issues involved in
>solutions... preservatives vs non-preserved... for instance...
>distilled water is not chlorinated.. so distilled water is potentially
>a medium for bacteria soup.
>And I promise tnot to make a big issure out of this.. even though I
>probably should.. but this is a good reason to have LASIK... to be
>free of sticking solutions into your eyes. Don't get me started on
>the old pretien eating pig pancreatin tablets....

You generalise too much. LASIK isn't good for all. It wouldn't be
good for me as I am monocular. Too risky.

Ann

>
>On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 13:03:24 -0700, Anon E. Muss
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 17:47:49 GMT, Ragnar <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I had not seen the full story about B&L and that solution. Scary
>>>stuff.
>>
>>I am convinced that these cases wouldn't have occured in any greater
>>incidence than patients using other solutions if the patients followed
>>proper lens hygiene, care, and obeyed the product instructions. I
>>believe that this is the case of a "perfect storm".
>>
>>IOW, B&L ReNu with MoisturLOC was riskier to use than other solutions
>>if you were non-compliant (i.e., basically a lazy slob) with your
>>doctor's instructions.
>>
>>>Which is yet another reason to avoid soft contact lenses.
>>
>>Wearing ANY contact lenses involve risk. That risk can be minimized
>>by following proper lens hygiene and wearing them per your eye
>>doctor's instructions. For most people the risk to benefit ratio is
>>certainly very acceptable.
>>
>>>Rigid lenses can be rinsed off with warm tap water. Those lenses to
>>>not absorb water nor does water adhere to them. Still, one might want
>>>to give them a squirt with some contact lens solution after
>>>thouroughly cleaning them with tap water.
>>
>>Might?
>>
>>>Another issue is that preserved solutions are not healthy for the
>>>eye... yet no preservatives is even more dangerous... so again.. go
>>>for the RGPs
>>
>>Rigid gas permeable contact lenses (RGPs) have advantages and
>>disadvantages versus soft contact lenses (SCLs). Eye doctors realize
>>this.
>>
>>For most of my patients, the advantages of SCLs (e.g., initial comfort
>>and relatively inexpensive frequent replacement modality)
>>overwhelmingly outweigh the advantages of RGPs (e.g., less costly over
>>the long run if patient doesn't lose/crack lenses and prescription
>>doesn't change).
>>
>>The "healthier for the eyes" advantage that RGPs had over SCLs is
>>pretty much gone with the availability of silicone hydrogel contat
>>lenses (SHCLs).
>>
>>(Yes, there are exceptions to this, like the -12.00DS -3.00DC OU
>>patient I had that had nasty limbal neovascularization and microcystic
>>edema from daily wear of Hydrasoft Torics and I "forced" into RGPs --
>>BTW, it was amazing hoiw much healthier her eyes looked in just the
>>course of a couple months! But for the -4.00DS myope, arguing that
>>RGPs are healthier than SHCLs if both are worn properly is basically
>>untenable.)
>>
>>When I go over the pros/cons of RGPs versus SCLs (which in 6/2006 is
>>SHCLs easily 95% of the time), the vast majority of my patients choose
>>SCLs.

Ann wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 20:19:07 GMT, Ragnar <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
> >I tend to agree with you.... there are many issues involved in
> >solutions... preservatives vs non-preserved... for instance...
> >distilled water is not chlorinated.. so distilled water is potentially
> >a medium for bacteria soup.
> >And I promise tnot to make a big issure out of this.. even though I
> >probably should.. but this is a good reason to have LASIK... to be
> >free of sticking solutions into your eyes. Don't get me started on
> >the old pretien eating pig pancreatin tablets....
>
> You generalise too much. LASIK isn't good for all. It wouldn't be
> good for me as I am monocular. Too risky.
>
> Ann

That's for sure. LASIK is inherently riskier than any contact lens.

DrG

Dr. Leukoma wrote:


.. LASIK is inherently riskier than any contact lens.
>
> DrG


Sounds like a true contact salesman. "Can't have anyone cutting a
slice in my pie."