Retail Optometry: Is That Even Science?

I swear, I keep saying I’ll stop posting things that are anti retail optometry.  It’s pretty difficult though in the face of continually seeing some of these really shockingly ignorant practices that beg to be called out.  Also:  There are lots and lots of great, fantastic, knowledgeable and dedicated optometrists that we love dearly.  This post, not about them.

Science.  You trust science.  And professional degrees and certifications.  

As you should, really.  It’s the best way to vet the proven vs. the sketchy, the quantifiable vs. all the unicorn pony delusions.  Sure, maybe chakra heart stones work, but maybe more sure you want to conduct a study and get hard data before you invest your time on that one.  

That is if you’re that sort of person, all skeptical and looking for hard data.

Enough with the opening statements.  Let’s really start this musing off with a post from the Facebook group:

optometry-not-science

Hmmm.

So this is where your friend Jake usually feels the minor coronary coming on.

Because why?  Because a profession claiming to treat you with scientific knowledge, when many of them are not.  What Tate overheard simply makes not an ounce of sense, and I’d love to hear the scientific explanation for why that optometrist would choose that particular treatment route.  I’ll be waiting a long time for that one obviously, because wow.  Can they get it any more backwards?

A very simple test of their knowledge of vision science (from the current century, not the age of Kepler), is to ask your optometrist what is generally considered to be causing progressive myopia.

If the response is #shutup©, then ok.  Touché.  

But if they start talking about genetics and various other ludicrous whatnots, then you know they just have quite possibly not an excesses amount of clue of what they’re talking about.  Because this is how myopia happens.  And holy wow the succinct summaries quoting hundreds of published studies in ophthalmology journals.  Or just directly to the point, optometry science straight up saying it

That’s science, darlings.  Optometry journals, peer reviewed, published science.  

But then you have the I-don’t-know-what-to-call-them contingent above, or even ophthalmologists who go on record stating that glasses don’t cause myopia.  Take that all in, in it’s juicy, mind boggling goodness of farcical wisdom.

This is where the coronary feels happen in some Jakes.  They hijack science, they put on the mantle of science claiming that this is what you’re getting, where it simply isn’t true whatsoever on so many levels.  An accredited professional who can’t tell you the primary driver of progressive myopia, doesn’t understand the basic tenants of how the eye works.  How can this person advocate a method of treatment?  And sure, you might wonder:  Is that an adventurous statement on my part?  Well, no.  Not when you have above links, all going straight to optometry journals, the publications specifically created for the ongoing education of the optometry professional.  Actual optometry science clearly contradicting what the retail lens seller might be telling you.  

And I am literally quoting their scientific journals.  Sometimes it feels like we honestly live in some kind of alternate reality.

Why and how does it have to come down to one vagrant pirate self proclaimed eye guru to pick up these professional journals meant for doctors and other wise men, be possibly the only one to actually read them, and come to the only meaningful, rational, logical conclusions that seem to happen in this space?

Why does everybody else, everybody licensed and sanctioned go running around quoting one shitty study they read quoted in Nature magazine about “going outside for natural light”, and talk about Ortho-K, or really most likely just telling you to go get LASIK surgery? 

I’m not sure how you could garner any more than absolutely zero respect for bold, willful, arrogant ignorance. 

Don’t pick any fights with them, that does nothing for anyone.  But read some science, come to your own conclusions.  And while you’re busy concluding, look at Bill’s comment in the same Facebook thread:

spiffs-glasses

Awe, shucks.  Money.

Profiteering.  I can’t with a straight face say that I have zero respect for that.  

Jake does rather fondly like his fast boats and loose women, as you probably have heard by now.  You need the profits to fan the heartwarming flames of unbridled hedonism.  I just wish it wasn’t going on at the expense of your healthy eyesight, is all.

Cheers,

Jake
Hedonist, Science Journal Reader, & Eye Guru 

2016-12-02T00:55:28+00:00 By |Categories: Questionable Therapy, Science|

Send this to a friend