Potential optometry student

Discussion in 'Student' started by chimbisimo, May 19, 2006.

  1. chimbisimo

    chimbisimo Guest

    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?
     
    chimbisimo, May 19, 2006
    #1
  2. chimbisimo

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Ace?

    Right up your alley....
     
    Neil Brooks, May 19, 2006
    #2
  3. chimbisimo

    Dom Guest

    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
     
    Dom, May 20, 2006
    #3
  4. chimbisimo

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    You forgot myopia prevention. Optometrists will be needed there as
    well.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, May 20, 2006
    #4
  5. chimbisimo

    otisbrown Guest

    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
     
    otisbrown, May 20, 2006
    #5
  6. chimbisimo

    Nick Guest

    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.
     
    Nick, May 20, 2006
    #6
  7. chimbisimo

    Dick Adams Guest

    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.
     
    Dick Adams, May 20, 2006
    #7
  8. chimbisimo

    Neil Brooks Guest

    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.
     
    Neil Brooks, May 20, 2006
    #8
  9. chimbisimo

    acemanvx Guest

    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!
     
    acemanvx, May 20, 2006
    #9
  10. chimbisimo

    Neil Brooks Guest

    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....
     
    Neil Brooks, May 20, 2006
    #10
  11. chimbisimo

    otisbrown Guest

    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
     
    otisbrown, May 20, 2006
    #11
  12. chimbisimo

    acemanvx Guest

    "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.
     
    acemanvx, May 20, 2006
    #12
  13. chimbisimo

    Neil Brooks Guest

    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?
     
    Neil Brooks, May 20, 2006
    #13
  14. chimbisimo

    Neil Brooks Guest

    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?
     
    Neil Brooks, May 20, 2006
    #14
  15. chimbisimo

    otisbrown Guest

    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?
     
    otisbrown, May 20, 2006
    #15
  16. chimbisimo

    Neil Brooks Guest

    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....
     
    Neil Brooks, May 20, 2006
    #16
  17. chimbisimo

    otisbrown Guest

    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
     
    otisbrown, May 20, 2006
    #17
  18. chimbisimo

    Neil Brooks Guest

    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?
     
    Neil Brooks, May 20, 2006
    #18
  19. chimbisimo

    Nick Guest

    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, May 21, 2006
    #19
  20. chimbisimo

    Dom Guest

    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
     
    Dom, May 21, 2006
    #20
Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.