Mislabeled soft contact strengths?

Has anyone else encountered this-soft contact lenses that do not seem to be
the rx indicated on the package?

I never encountered it before, but in a recent box of ciba focus night &
days, two out of the six lenses seemed to be the incorrect strength, a
little too strong.

I am fitted monovision for presbyopia, and am very myopic. My left eye is
fitted for reading, using a n&d -4.5 (very undercorrected from what I would
need for max distance, to use that eye for reading).

Recently it seemed to me like my presbyopia suddenly got a lot worse. I
often had to use reading glasses over my monovision contacts. Then I
recalled a few months ago having the same problem, switching to a different
n&d -4.5 lens in my left eye than the one I already had on, and the problem
was much improved. So, I tried that again last night, switched to a
different one from the same box, and my near vision was much better.

These lenses for the left eye were all from the same box, and the individual
packaging all had the same specs on it. All I can figure out though, is that
a couple of the lenses did not have the stated rx of -4.5, but were a little
stronger, like -4.75. Not so different that I noticed it in putting them on,
but enough to make reading more difficult.

Again, i never recall this happening before this one box, but it is rather
troubling, if two out of six lenses are not the stated prescription. Has
Ciba's quality control been slipping lately? Has this happened to anyone
else, with any brand lens?

MS wrote:

> Has anyone else encountered this-soft contact lenses that do not seem to be
> the rx indicated on the package?
>
> I never encountered it before, but in a recent box of ciba focus night &
> days, two out of the six lenses seemed to be the incorrect strength, a
> little too strong.
>
> I am fitted monovision for presbyopia, and am very myopic. My left eye is
> fitted for reading, using a n&d -4.5 (very undercorrected from what I would
> need for max distance, to use that eye for reading).
>
> Recently it seemed to me like my presbyopia suddenly got a lot worse. I
> often had to use reading glasses over my monovision contacts. Then I
> recalled a few months ago having the same problem, switching to a different
> n&d -4.5 lens in my left eye than the one I already had on, and the problem
> was much improved. So, I tried that again last night, switched to a
> different one from the same box, and my near vision was much better.
>
> These lenses for the left eye were all from the same box, and the individual
> packaging all had the same specs on it. All I can figure out though, is that
> a couple of the lenses did not have the stated rx of -4.5, but were a little
> stronger, like -4.75. Not so different that I noticed it in putting them on,
> but enough to make reading more difficult.
>
> Again, i never recall this happening before this one box, but it is rather
> troubling, if two out of six lenses are not the stated prescription. Has
> Ciba's quality control been slipping lately? Has this happened to anyone
> else, with any brand lens?

It ALWAYS happens with me, with every brand I've used and with every fitter
I've gone to since 1998, when I started wearing contacts. I believe it has to
do with manufacturing tolerances, and some of us require more precision than we
can get. Perhaps half the lenses out of every box are just WRONG. When I keep
asking for replacements, the fitters eventually figure I'm trying to pull some
sort of scam -- although they can't figure out what it might be since I'm happy
to return the bad lenses.

The last pair I had I wore for over a year because I had no confidence at all
that ordering a new box would fit. Turns out that was a good decision because
my eyes have become LESS farsighted in the last year.

Latest trial prescription (fourth) in this series, which I put on the first
time half an hour ago:

8.4/14.4 Frequency 55
R +3.00 -2.25 x090
L +6.00 -3.25 x080

The right seems pretty good, and my left eye is such a bitch (I have a <deep
breath> foveomacular vitelliform dystrophy in that eye) that as long as it
gives me decent 3D vision I'm satisfied.

--
Cheers, Bev
================================================== ===========
"On the other hand, I live in California so I'd be willing to
squeeze schoolchildren to death if I thought some oil would
come out." -- Scott Adams

I didn't ask for replacements. I guess I could have. Except i can't remember
which online supplier i bought the last box from.Also, it would be kind of
hard to send a loose soft contact in the mail as proof. So, as you say, they
might think one is just making that up.

To me, two wrong ones in one box of six seemed like a lot. You write half of
every box! A lot!

These are major large healthcare companies. One would think they would be
more careful about stuff like that!



"The Real Bev" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:j_cTl.10721$_(E-Mail Removed)...
> MS wrote:
>
>> Has anyone else encountered this-soft contact lenses that do not seem to
>> be
>> the rx indicated on the package?
>>
>> I never encountered it before, but in a recent box of ciba focus night &
>> days, two out of the six lenses seemed to be the incorrect strength, a
>> little too strong.
>>
>> I am fitted monovision for presbyopia, and am very myopic. My left eye is
>> fitted for reading, using a n&d -4.5 (very undercorrected from what I
>> would
>> need for max distance, to use that eye for reading).
>>
>> Recently it seemed to me like my presbyopia suddenly got a lot worse. I
>> often had to use reading glasses over my monovision contacts. Then I
>> recalled a few months ago having the same problem, switching to a
>> different
>> n&d -4.5 lens in my left eye than the one I already had on, and the
>> problem
>> was much improved. So, I tried that again last night, switched to a
>> different one from the same box, and my near vision was much better.
>>
>> These lenses for the left eye were all from the same box, and the
>> individual
>> packaging all had the same specs on it. All I can figure out though, is
>> that
>> a couple of the lenses did not have the stated rx of -4.5, but were a
>> little
>> stronger, like -4.75. Not so different that I noticed it in putting them
>> on,
>> but enough to make reading more difficult.
>>
>> Again, i never recall this happening before this one box, but it is
>> rather
>> troubling, if two out of six lenses are not the stated prescription. Has
>> Ciba's quality control been slipping lately? Has this happened to anyone
>> else, with any brand lens?
>
> It ALWAYS happens with me, with every brand I've used and with every
> fitter
> I've gone to since 1998, when I started wearing contacts. I believe it
> has to
> do with manufacturing tolerances, and some of us require more precision
> than we
> can get. Perhaps half the lenses out of every box are just WRONG. When I
> keep
> asking for replacements, the fitters eventually figure I'm trying to pull
> some
> sort of scam -- although they can't figure out what it might be since I'm
> happy
> to return the bad lenses.
>
> The last pair I had I wore for over a year because I had no confidence at
> all
> that ordering a new box would fit. Turns out that was a good decision
> because
> my eyes have become LESS farsighted in the last year.
>
> Latest trial prescription (fourth) in this series, which I put on the
> first
> time half an hour ago:
>
> 8.4/14.4 Frequency 55
> R +3.00 -2.25 x090
> L +6.00 -3.25 x080
>
> The right seems pretty good, and my left eye is such a bitch (I have a
> <deep
> breath> foveomacular vitelliform dystrophy in that eye) that as long as it
> gives me decent 3D vision I'm satisfied.
>
> --
> Cheers, Bev
> ================================================== ===========
> "On the other hand, I live in California so I'd be willing to
> squeeze schoolchildren to death if I thought some oil would
> come out." -- Scott Adams

On May 25, 11:04*am, "MS" <m...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Has anyone else encountered this-soft contact lenses that do not seem to be
> the rx indicated on the package?
>
> I never encountered it before, but in a recent box of ciba focus night &
> days, two out of the six lenses seemed to be the incorrect strength, a
> little too strong.
>
> I am fitted monovision for presbyopia, and am very myopic. My left eye is
> fitted for reading, using a n&d -4.5 (very undercorrected from what I would
> need for max distance, to use that eye for reading).
>
> Recently it seemed to me like my presbyopia suddenly got a lot worse. I
> often had to use reading glasses over my monovision contacts. Then I
> recalled a few months ago having the same problem, switching to a different
> n&d -4.5 lens in my left eye than the one I already had on, and the problem
> was much improved. So, I tried that again last night, switched to a
> different one from the same box, and my near vision was much better.
>
> These lenses for the left eye were all from the same box, and the individual
> packaging all had the same specs on it. All I can figure out though, is that
> a couple of the lenses did not have the stated rx of -4.5, but were a little
> stronger, like -4.75. Not so different that I noticed it in putting them on,
> but enough to make reading more difficult.
>
> Again, i never recall this happening before this one box, but it is rather
> troubling, if two out of six lenses are not the stated prescription. Has
> Ciba's quality control been slipping lately? *Has this happened to anyone
> else, with any brand lens?

Nothing is 100%. I often find that if a patient has a bum lens from a
box, all or several of the lenses in the box will have the same
problem. No manufacturers are immune from this kind of problem.

Return the box and the bad lenses if you still have them. Your fitter
should be able to replace them and return the bad box to CIBA. CIBA
wants to know about these kind of problems, they will use the lot # to
track whether other lenses made that day had problems and they will
review the qualtity control reports for that day.

Judy

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> On May 25, 11:04 am, "MS" <m...@nospam.com> wrote:
....
>> These lenses for the left eye were all from the same box, and the individual
>> packaging all had the same specs on it. All I can figure out though, is that
>> a couple of the lenses did not have the stated rx of -4.5, but were a little
>> stronger, like -4.75. Not so different that I noticed it in putting them on,
>> but enough to make reading more difficult.
>>
>> Again, i never recall this happening before this one box, but it is rather
>> troubling, if two out of six lenses are not the stated prescription. Has
>> Ciba's quality control been slipping lately? Has this happened to anyone
>> else, with any brand lens?
>
> Nothing is 100%. I often find that if a patient has a bum lens from a
> box, all or several of the lenses in the box will have the same
> problem. No manufacturers are immune from this kind of problem.

That's somebody else's problem; all my bad lenses are different in a different
way, as are all the "good" lenses, which are just acceptable rather than
actually good.

> Return the box and the bad lenses if you still have them. Your fitter
> should be able to replace them and return the bad box to CIBA. CIBA
> wants to know about these kind of problems, they will use the lot # to
> track whether other lenses made that day had problems and they will
> review the qualtity control reports for that day.

Cooper basically told me to pound sand, they only talked to distributors. My
fitter didn't want to bother. I changed fitters. The next one didn't want to
bother either. Now my ophthalmologist is doing the fitting; if she finds
something that works I'm inclined to order the lenses through her captive
optician, with the understanding that I'm paying what I assume to be extra for
the privilege of returning any bad lenses without hassle.

--
Cheers, Bev
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$
Polish loan sharks: they loan you money and then skip town.

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:22bd0169-209b-4a2a-90c7-(E-Mail Removed)...
Return the box and the bad lenses if you still have them. Your fitter
should be able to replace them and return the bad box to CIBA. CIBA
wants to know about these kind of problems, they will use the lot # to
track whether other lenses made that day had problems and they will
review the qualtity control reports for that day.

Judy

----------------

I don't still have them. But if I did, how would one send a used soft
contact in the mail? It would be completely dried and brittle when it
arrives.

Also, I bought through an online lens retailer. (I don't even recall which
one.) If I sent them the box and bad lenses, i greatly doubt that they would
bother to send it to Ciba. I don't know whether they would refund or give me
credit (I kind of doubt it, although it's possible), but in either case I
doubt they would bother sending to Ciba.

I don't know if one can send mislabeled lenses directly to the manufacturer.
But then again, how would one send them?

On May 29, 10:08*am, "MS" <m...@nospam.com> wrote:

> I don't still have them. But if I did, how would one send a used soft
> contact in the mail? It would be completely dried and brittle when it
> arrives.

In which case ... they'd re-hydrate it with saline solution....

In article <dMTTl.1528$(E-Mail Removed)>,
"MS" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:22bd0169-209b-4a2a-90c7-(E-Mail Removed)...
> Return the box and the bad lenses if you still have them.
> I don't still have them. But if I did, how would one send a used soft
> contact in the mail? It would be completely dried and brittle when it
> arrives.

> I don't know if one can send mislabeled lenses directly to the manufacturer.
> But then again, how would one send them?

My local drugstore sells contact holders for US$2.49 for a package of
two. Each holder has a left and a right. I don't think you can beat
that price.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
(E-Mail Removed)

Dan Abel wrote:

> In article <dMTTl.1528$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> "MS" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:22bd0169-209b-4a2a-90c7-(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Return the box and the bad lenses if you still have them.
>> I don't still have them. But if I did, how would one send a used soft
>> contact in the mail? It would be completely dried and brittle when it
>> arrives.
>
>> I don't know if one can send mislabeled lenses directly to the manufacturer.
>> But then again, how would one send them?

President.of.company at manufacturer.address. Include a letter. It probably
won't help.

> My local drugstore sells contact holders for US$2.49 for a package of
> two. Each holder has a left and a right. I don't think you can beat
> that price.

They generally come free with brand-name cleaning solution. My fitters have
always had a drawer full of them which they're happy to give away. I've got
several dozen myself.

--
Cheers, Bev
************************************************** ***
Nothing is so stupid that you can't find somebody who
did it at least once if you look hard enough.

On May 29, 12:08*pm, "MS" <m...@nospam.com> wrote:
> <mpac...@rogers.com> wrote in message
>
> news:22bd0169-209b-4a2a-90c7-(E-Mail Removed)...
> Return the box and the bad lenses if you still have them. *Your fitter
> should be able to replace them and return the bad box to CIBA. *CIBA
> wants to know about these kind of problems, they will use the lot # to
> track whether other lenses made that day had problems and they will
> review the qualtity control reports for that day.
>
> Judy
>
> ----------------
>
> I don't still have them. But if I did, how would one send a used soft
> contact in the mail? It would be completely dried and brittle when it
> arrives.

In solution in an old case (you do change your case every three months
don't you?)

>
> Also, I bought through an online lens retailer. (I don't even recall which
> one.) If I sent them the box and bad lenses, i greatly doubt that they would
> bother to send it to Ciba.

One of the pitfalls of ordering on line. In our office, if you bought
them from us, we would give you single replacements for the bad ones
and return the remaining to our rep.

Dr Judy