The Optometrist Conspiracy

Well, I think it's more a paradigm, however predictable social psychology, paradigms, and conspiracy all have an overlap with each other, but to the point.

You know when you go to the eye glasses doctor, and he does the little flippy thing and asks you: "Which is better, one....or two?" That thing is called the phoropter. It's been around a long time and is still used to determine your corrective lenses by every shop in town - at least in my area for the dozens that I called.

One day I had a set of glasses made for me where I didn't use one of these and it was 1998. They had me look into a machine, and that was it. Within two days I had the best pair of eyeglasses ever - even since then. My vision was better than 20/20 with these glasses. Upon returning to my hometown I searched for an eye doctor that used such equipment to determine my correction level to no avail. I even wound up speaking directly to the optometrist on many occasions. I was generally treated with mystery or even contempt for my inquiries. I would take the lower quality prescriptions, but then each year or two it came time for a new pair I would make a round of calls again. The results never varied until I had a lengthy discussion in the office with an optometrist.

It turns out the device I was seeking was already in most offices. It's an auto refractometer (and I had been using the terms "optical, lens, light refraction"). While there are various grades of this type of machine, some of which have fancier names to indicate better technology, I was told that despite the incredible accuracy and high definition of these machines they are only used as a "gauge" to ensure the manual process is not too far off, and the manual flipping method is still used as the actual determination.

Why would they use a far less accurate method to determine your corrective lens? The only conclusion I could come to was a set of paradigms. One being that the other method is too fast and people would demand to pay less for their visit, a hit to their pocket book. The other was that the machine would antiquate the doctor's usefulness, a slam to their ego. I call shenanigans - move forward you greedy cowards. This technology has been around for more than a decade and like much technology is even cheaper and better than it was yesterday. There's no ethical or logical excuse to "stay the course".

reply to post by Nefarious




Dont get me started on the dentist conspiracy...

reply to post by Nefarious


how about they always try and peddle the "eye dialating" as an extra cost procedure which basically puts you at great risk for eye damage. which is what? perfect for them!! then you need them even more, and your eyes deteriorate at a rate faster than those never dialated!! win/win for them..

my question is why doesn't every optometrist just do eye corrective surgeries?

ooh, ooh, i know.. then you wouldn't need the yearly $200 eye exam before a store will sell you contacts. Or the every 2 year eye exam and $300 glasses.

reply to post by dniMnepO


Oh but we do have to go through the dentist thing. How much of a sham is that. As for the optomitrist, I'm suppost to with in the month. I will most deffinatly inquire about that.

I can see your point about the doctor feeling obsolete and the money factor but....

I have really good optical insurance through my work. Everyone in my household gets an checkup and a new pair of lenses (or contact sets) every year covered. We get new frames every other year covered.

Walking in the doctor knows he's going to get paid his full amount so he doesn't have anyone to impress by using the flippers. Not knowing anything about it other than common sense, my guess is that it's like getting a new pair of shoes. You measure your foot and it may say size X, but when you try on different styles or types of shoes or boots, etc, you may go up or down a 1/2 size...sometimes even a full size. My feet are extremely wide, so when I'm buying serious boots or sports equipment I often have to adjust my shoe size larger to acoomodate my EE width feet. For soft fitting shoes like sneakers, I can often go a 1/2 size under what I measure to have a tight fit. (I'm not overweight, just wide footed.)

Anyway...not to go off on a tangent but I think at the end of the day people's eye shape and the strength of their eye muscles to reshape the eye in a favored direction away from the baseline that the automatic machine measures can effect their comfort in reading. I think the flip machine just gives that final blessing to the functionallity and comfort of the glasses.

That's my guess anyway.

As for the Dentist... I have a great one now, but I have went to some mega scam artists.

How do you go from having no cavities, no "sticks", no "watches", no "let's keep an eye on this problem area", to six months later needing three f'ing fillings.

Give me a break!

I know my dentist, that I have now, is cool because it's a long slow progression from "we need to watch this tooth" to "ok - time to drill".... which would make perfectly logical common sense... (if you see your dentist every 6 months for your cleaning.)

reply to post by JonInMichigan


If that were the case I would expect far less flipping - starting off or near what my prescription would be rather than "from the beginning". As for the refraction machines - they are able to pick up every aspect of the light's path traveled into your eyes whereas the flipping requires you to properly interpret which one is best - and how many times have you seen each flip to be nearly identical, where you couldn't really tell the difference? Well, the refraction can determine which is a better match for you eye even if your brain cannot.

And how many people experience some sort of irritation when using the phoropter? My eyes often get irritated and even watery, making the determination even more inaccurate.

Comparing it to shoes...well only if you're going to compare a laser scan of your foot and a shoe custom made to be an exact fit compared to trying on every shoe within 3 sizes. I could see two or three custom shoes from the laser scan in order to determine your preference for snugness, though.

I had Lasik eye surgery about 10 years ago. It changed my life.

I've been contact free since then.
I've been eye doctor free since then.

It has saved me well over $4,000 and my eye sight is better than 20/20.

And if your thinking about getting Lasik - Never pay full price - I negotiated my cost to a 1/3 of what the tried to charge me.

reply to post by JonInMichigan


I used to go every 6 months because it was covered and every other time I had to get fillings. I found it very odd because I take care of my teeth.. So, I descided to make a little experiment. Taking notes of what was done and where and cross referencing with the future results. The next time I had an appointment for a clean-up all was fine and I stayed in the chair for the ..."cheif examiner" or what ever they're called to make her last examination. She scraped really hard on one of my back tooth. Then a clean bill was given. Six months later, I return..and guess what, I had yet an other cavity that was just starting exactly where she had scraped like crazy. This went on for 4 years..8 times at the dentist, 4 fillings. After I found my findings to be conclusive I descided to not go back. I haven't been in six years..not a tooth ache...nothing.

I worked with this guy that had "NEVER" went to the dentist in his life. He started work where I was so with the coverage he started to go. The dentist couldn't beleive he never went. Congradulated him and sent him on his way with a quick clean-up under his belt and no cavities. Guess what happened 6 months later..he got a filling...weird.

I hate the stupid flipper thing; 1 and 2 always look the same.

reply to post by InvisibleAlbatross


LOL, You're blind! It almost did sound like I said something similar...but to clarify, it's those last moment of honing in on your correction that you may wind up somewhere between two flips, but refraction equipment will know far better than your own consciousness.

I don't have the resources to run down some interviews, so I'll do the next best thing: Google.

This guy put his phoropter away in 1982!

www.optometric.com...

It’s July 1982 and I’m seeing my first patient in Dad’s office – it’s still his practice at this point. "What the hell is that?" he asks. "It’s a phoropter, Dad." "Not in my office," he responds. This was my initiation into trial frame refraction.

Seventeen years and several thousand refractions later, I’m finally convinced. Putting a dust cover on the phoropter in 1982 was the right move. I’m proud to say I use the thing three times a year and can’t remember why I use it that much.

Now, we have a new perimeter, retinal camera, up-to-date computer, top-of-the-line patternless edger, Eye-Trac recorder and an autorefractor. Dad is even using a pupillometer – not to mention the push button phone. But the phoropter is gathering dust. You know what? Dad was right. After all, he’s been doing this for 60 years. Sixty years! (It’s worth repeating.)

www.medkb.com...

My question: I believe that the prescription the Doc took for the
intraocular lenses was done, not by a traditional phoropter (that
device with the two hundred lenses where you are asked, "which is
better 1 or 2) but instead was done with a computer controlled device
that you look into and measurements are taken by the computer. I'm
guessing that the measurements involve the curvature of the cornea.

I'm convinced that whatever this device is called, it's accuracy is
far superior to the conventional phoropter because my vision has never
been sharper (and I've worn glasses my whole life).