Potential 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....

 

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.

 

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.

 

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!

 

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....

 

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

 

"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.

 

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.

The what?

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.....

Uh ... what?

 

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:

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?

 

wrote:

[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....

 

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

 

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:

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'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