Eyeglasses and retail optometry are scams

[theprestige]

Honestly I'm impressed that Luxottica saw an overlooked opportunity for vertical integration and quietly took it while no one was looking. Good for them. As a regular eyeglass customer, I have no complaints about their guardianship of the industry.

 

[hecd2]

Luxottica and Essilor are the largest manufactures of frames and lenses respectively, and you can be certain that the executives are aware of the studies on hyperopic defocus.

Could you reference these studies in adult humans? Because in all the pages of this thread the only references you have given us is to studies in juvenile tree shrews and in children, which are irrelevant to your contentions that, in adults, axial elongation results from refractive correction; and that you can reverse myopia by chronic underprescribing.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Luxottica and Essilor are the largest manufactures of frames and lenses respectively, and you can be certain that the executives are aware of the studies on hyperopic defocus.

They are probably behind the political movement to prevent people from ordering frames and lenses online with custom prescriptions. As I recall there was a bill introduced to require online eyewear companies to only accept authentic prescriptions from board certified optometrists - essentially they want to regulate the pieces of plastic people wear in front of their eyes. I am pretty sure it didn't pass.

I asked a Wal-Mart optometrist once if she would fabricate some custom lenses for me for some frames I already had, without a prescription, and she flatly declined.

My eye tests are free because my mother has glaucoma.
When I have the test done they give me a card with my prescription on it and I get the glasses wherever I want.
I usually get them from an online supplier for very little money.
I have even had new lenses put in old frames that I liked.
You should live in a civilised country.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Honestly I'm impressed that Luxottica saw an overlooked opportunity for vertical integration and quietly took it while no one was looking. Good for them. As a regular eyeglass customer, I have no complaints about their guardianship of the industry.

I was never really impressed with the quality of the 200-300 frames that were common at the local glasses store that was covered by my vision plan.

I've been using Warby Parker for the last few years and just pay of pocket to get an eye exam at Costco every once in a while. The build quality is pretty good, I generally replace them every 2 years just to make sure my script is current. Haven't had a single pair break yet and they only cost $95. I also buy very cheap beaters from places like Zenni, where you can get ugly but functional frames for like $10.

Vision insurance doesn't really seem to be worth it, at least for me with my fairly simple single-vision script. The negotiated price for the frames is still more than what you can find outside the plan, and there's no quality difference that I can tell.

The vertical integration of these companies, where they are both buyer and seller because they own the eyeglasses and the vision plans, seems like an obvious invitation for price bloat.

 

[Andy_Ross]

In the UK Specsavers stores do frames from £19.
I got my polarised prescription sunglasses from them last year.
They were more than £19 though, I went for their mid range frames and plastic, thin and lightweight nikon lenses.

 

[Tippit]

Could you reference these studies in adult humans? Because in all the pages of this thread the only references you have given us is to studies in juvenile tree shrews and in children, which are irrelevant to your contentions that, in adults, axial elongation results from refractive correction; and that you can reverse myopia by chronic underprescribing.

Who is going to fund studies for hyperopic defocus in adults? The people who are not going to make any money not selling anyone eyeglasses that cause hyperopic defocus?

In the meantime, thousands of us or more have performed our own experiments, and the jury is in. Overprescribed eyeglasses, especially when used for near work, cause progressive myopia.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tippit]

My eye tests are free because my mother has glaucoma.
When I have the test done they give me a card with my prescription on it and I get the glasses wherever I want.
I usually get them from an online supplier for very little money.
I have even had new lenses put in old frames that I liked.
You should live in a civilised country.

I successfully ordered a series of reduced lenses, -1.5, -1.25, -1, and -.75 from Zenni.com. I was commenting on the desire from some to regulate this freedom out of existence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hecd2]

Could you reference these studies in adult humans? Because in all the pages of this thread the only references you have given us is to studies in juvenile tree shrews and in children, which are irrelevant to your contentions that, in adults, axial elongation results from refractive correction; and that you can reverse myopia by chronic underprescribing.

Who is going to fund studies for hyperopic defocus in adults? The people who are not going to make any money not selling anyone eyeglasses that cause hyperopic defocus?

So there is no peer reviewed science to support your proposition. Got it.


You imply that the only funding for ophthalmic research comes from the makers of glasses which is just as silly as almost everything else that you say.

 

[Tippit]

So there is no peer reviewed science to support your proposition. Got it.

There is peer reviewed science that shows that hyperopic and myopic defocus changes axial elongation. You're just assuming that because the only studies available were in children, that the results are specific to children, and they're not.

You imply that the only funding for ophthalmic research comes from the makers of glasses which is just as silly as almost everything else that you say.

No, but predominately funding for peer-reviewed science originates from those with a monetary interest in specific results of the findings. Are you silly enough to suggest that selection bias doesn't exist in peer-reviewed studies? Someone, somewhere has to decide what is and what is not studied, and according to some criteria.

 

[Tippit]

Here is a video of Steiner commenting specifically on the topic of axial elongation and shortening:



I thought I posted it before but maybe the draft was cancelled.

 

[hecd2]

There is peer reviewed science that shows that hyperopic and myopic defocus changes axial elongation. You're just assuming that because the only studies available were in children, that the results are specific to children, and they're not.

So you say. Do you have any evidence to back up that assertion or is it just another claim you have pulled out of your backside.

No, but predominately funding for peer-reviewed science originates from those with a monetary interest in specific results of the findings.

Another thing that you pulled out of your backside. Let's see you support that unevidenced assertion with, well, evidence.

Someone, somewhere has to decide what is and what is not studied, and according to some criteria.

Indeed, but it is a long road from accepting that obvious claim to accepting that the reason there is no science to support your folk tales is that those with a financial interest in the outcome have prevented them being done.

 

[Andy_Ross]

There is peer reviewed science that shows that hyperopic and myopic defocus changes axial elongation. You're just assuming that because the only studies available were in children, that the results are specific to children, and they're not.



No, but predominately funding for peer-reviewed science originates from those with a monetary interest in specific results of the findings. Are you silly enough to suggest that selection bias doesn't exist in peer-reviewed studies? Someone, somewhere has to decide what is and what is not studied, and according to some criteria.

You know that there is a lot of research around the world not funded by anyone with a monetary interest?

Are you implying that there is some kind of conspiracy by the manufacturers of glasses to stifle research?

 

[Gamolon]

Here is a video of Steiner commenting specifically on the topic of axial elongation and shortening:



I thought I posted it before but maybe the draft was cancelled.

Just curious.

Which of Jake's classes below did you pay for to get your eyesight back to 20/35?


Or was it one of the other classes he offers? Maybe you continuously did the free 7 day guide over the course of 3+ years?

 

[Tippit]

So you say. Do you have any evidence to back up that assertion or is it just another claim you have pulled out of your backside.

Yes. It's all over the thread, with links and references, plus my own personal experience overcoming a disease with supposedly "genetic" causes.

Do you have any particular reason for your irrational bias? Do you have any scientific basis for why you think it's more reasonable to be cynical of the idea that defocus causes axial changes in the human adult eye, given the peer reviewed studies, as opposed to intrigued by the idea?

Another thing that you pulled out of your backside. Let's see you support that unevidenced assertion with, well, evidence.

The evidence is that I can pass vision tests where before I couldn't, as the direct result of using a specific method that is backed with science.

Indeed, but it is a long road from accepting that obvious claim to accepting that the reason there is no science to support your folk tales is that those with a financial interest in the outcome have prevented them being done.

How do you know it's a "folk tale"? It sounds like you already know it all. Are you a know-it-all?

I never suggested there are people preventing such studies, I suggested that there is no money in certain types of studies which might prove that various medial/drug interventions are unnecessary, or even harmful. In fact, there is a lot of money to be lost, for certain interests. Do you disagree?

 

[Tippit]

Just curious.

Which of Jake's classes below did you pay for to get your eyesight back to 20/35?
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_13409608af2c91d7c6.jpg[/qimg]

Or was it one of the other classes he offers? Maybe you continuously did the free 7 day guide over the course of 3+ years?

Do you have poor reading comprehension, or were you just too lazy to read the thread? I've paid Steiner zero dollars, and zero cents. I took the freely available information available from his website and youtube videos, and applied it.

Essentially, by undercorrecting your prescription to about 20/50, and practicing good visual hygiene (20-20-20 rule, taking significant computer breaks, engaging distance vision outdoors as a matter of habit), you can reduce your myopia by about .25 diopters every 3-4 months. Since most people are overprescribed, you can reduce your first prescription by as much as 0.5 diopter, and you will see significant and rapid results within even a month or two. That's all there is to it.

Astigmatism complicates things, but assuming it's not the result of a defect or injury to the cornea or lens, you can reduce your CYL correction by as much as .25 diopter at a time until you achieve desired results.

 

[Gamolon]

I took the freely available information available from his website and youtube videos, and applied it.

Interesting.

So nobody needs his $4,299/$997 for one year/$99 a month for one year classes (or any of his other classes he offers)? Everything anyone needs to improve their eyesight to 20/20 is all available in his videos/website?

 

[Tippit]

Interesting.

So nobody needs his $4,299/$997 for one year/$99 a month for one year classes (or any of his other classes he offers)? Everything anyone needs to improve their eyesight to 20/20 is all available in his videos/website?

Yes. Some people need their hands held, so I presume that's why they pay. Do I have a problem with him charging people money to give them advice that works? Not at all. In fact, that makes him quite a bit better than the eyeglass manufacturers and retail optometrists that actually make people's eyesight worse over time for multiple billions in profit in comparison.

I hope he himself becomes a billionaire selling the truth about retail optometry!

 

[Gamolon]

Essentially, by undercorrecting your prescription to about 20/50, and practicing good visual hygiene (20-20-20 rule, taking significant computer breaks, engaging distance vision outdoors as a matter of habit), you can reduce your myopia by about .25 diopters every 3-4 months. Since most people are overprescribed, you can reduce your first prescription by as much as 0.5 diopter, and you will see significant and rapid results within even a month or two. That's all there is to it.

So you've condensed all 1,200 pieces of information Jake has out there into one small paragraph that explains what people need to do to improve their eyesight to 20/20?!

Note that all courses are optional. I spend a great deal of time making everything you need available for free. There are over 1,200 free articles, how-to guides, many improvement reports, diopter discussions, as well as our FB group and private forum. If you want a more structured approach with personal support, I do provide the best possible resources and tools to help you eliminate your lens dependence.

 

[ahhell]

Here I was thinking that this thread was going to be about the vertical integration and price gouging of the prescription eyeglass market, but it turned out to be much more interesting.

I'd say "less" where you went with "more", but OK.

Same, its really an under reported scandal.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I bet the people that own the two opticians in Guisborough wish they were on multi billions.