Conference back40::soapbox

Bausch and Lomb.  nnttM.

    If you get what you pay for, why is this a ripoff?  Every grocery store
    in this country sells the same item at different prices per unit --
    large boxes of cereal versus small boxes of cereal for example.  So
    what?
    
    What's the complaint here?  Are the lenses sold as good for a year not
    good for a year?  If they are good, then the people who paid $90 for
    lenses good for a year got lenses good for a year.  The people who paid
    for lenses good for three months got lenses good for three months.  The
    people who paid for lenses good for two weeks got lenses good for two
    weeks.
    
    Who did not get what they paid for?
    
    
    				-- edp 
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    False advertising I think is the complaint.  The ones advertised for
    lasting two weeks or "disposable" are in fact far more durable.  If the
    literature and instructions state this, then there is no complaint. 
    Ditto the 3 month ones etc.  If they are claimed ot be good for only
    two weeks and must be replaced, this is false advertising.  The
    solution game is quite different.  One only needs to read the
    ingredients.  This is played all the time with household cleaning
    products which are usually solutions with varying amounts of bleach.  
    
    Brian

Wear eyeglasses and screw 'em all.

    
    Long-term eyeglasses or the disposable ones?
    

>                  This is played all the time with household cleaning
>    products which are usually solutions with varying amounts of bleach.  

Name two liquid cleaning products that contain bleach.

    X-14, Comet (liquid), Soft Scrub
    

    
    This reminds me of something I was told (that may or may not have been
    true) regarding the Intel 386 and 486 chips: that the SX and DX versions 
    were actually the same chip, but the math co-processor had been disabled
    in the SX version.
    

    Or the SX version's math co-processor failed, but the rest of the chip
    passed tests.

    Does wearing eyeglasses increase one's sex drive?

There are many more household cleaning products that do not contain bleach
than there are ones that do.  F'rinstance, /nasser's beloved Pin Sole,
floor cleaners, glass cleaners, lotsa bathroom cleaners.

    
    I'm sorry I didn't get to see this program.  I don't see that it's a 
    ripoff or false advertising, though.  
    
    I've been wearing contact lenses for 19 years and what they're offering
    with these "disposable" lenses is convenience, pure and simple.  I buy
    the regular, non-disposable type lenses.  The amount of time they last
    depends on how well you take care of them, and taking care of them is
    not cheap.  However, since I have astigmatic lenses, they're about $150
    a pair, so I am careful.
    
    I have to clean them every night with a protein remover (1.5oz bottle,
    ~$5 every 3 months).  Then I disinfect them in a hydrogen peroxide 
    solution (12oz bottle, $8 every 2 months) and neutralize the HO
    solution with a neutralizing disc ($6 every 3 months).  The next
    morning I rinse them with saline ($2 every 2 months).  Once a week I
    use an enzyme remover on them ($12 every 3 months).
    
    If you're just going to throw away the lenses in a month, I'd bet you
    don't go through the time and expense and hassle to take such good care
    of them.  It would be worth the extra money, if you're short for time
    in your life, to just buy disposable lenses.
    
      
    

    True, Gerald.  There are however many that will also not perform to the
    same level as plain old bleach.  A $0.39 gal. of bleach can make
    several gallons of effective household cleaners especially bathroom
    cleaners at a fraction of the cost of many of the leading name brands. 
    Therefore, the analogy holds.  

| <<< Note 581.3 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey." >>>


| What's the complaint here?  

	The same lense you pay $10 for is the same lense you pay $90 for. If
the $90 lense makes a claim they are good for a year, then the $10 lenses are
also good for a year because they are the identical lense. As it stands now,
the box says they are good for 1-2 weeks.




Glen

| <<< Note 581.11 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "CPU Cycler" >>>

| Does wearing eyeglasses increase one's sex drive?

	Increases ones aim...

    
    	Glen, if you were to buy a $10 contact lens, would you throw
    	it out after a week because that's what the box said that you
    	should do?  Or would you wear it until it was ready to be rep-
    	laced?
    
    	Sounds like the idiots are the users of the $10 lenses who're
    	throwing them away after a week for no reason.
    

	I couldn't answer that Shawn....so far I have been blessed with 20/20
vision. I did ask my roomate about it last night. He was really pissed. He's
been buying the middle line, when he could have been buying the $10 pair. 


Glen

    Re .15:
    
    > The same lense you pay $10 for is the same lense you pay $90 for.
    
    What sort of complaint is that?  There's no law against selling an item
    to one person for $10 and another person for $90.  Car dealers do it
    all the time.  So do hotels.  So do airlines.  Can you sue a hotel for
    not telling you about the AAA discount rate?
    
    A valid complaint would be if the product were NOT good for the
    purporse for which it was sold.  That isn't the case here.  People were
    sold products that were good for what they were sold.  What are they
    going to do, go to court and complain the products were too good?
    
    Did the company make any false statement?  Did it SAY the lenses were
    NOT good for more than the supported period?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    I use the new ACUVUE daily-disposable.

    No solution, no cleaning, no storage.  Always a fresh lens.  Extra
    pair in the bottom of my briefcase.

    I'm hooked.
    \john

    How much does this cost per year?

    
    > Or the SX version's math co-processor failed, but the rest of the chip
    > passed tests.
    
    It would still need to be disabled, so that it didn't decide
    to "pull a Pentium" as it were...
    
    However, I think it's urban legend anyway, as the die size published
    in the tech literature is different (the SX has a smaller die size).
    
    -b

 I wear glasses for reading, when I remember to bring them to work and remember
to take them home after I've taken them to work (when I remember to bring 
them).




 Jim

    I'm cursed with so much astigmatism I can't wear soft lenses; it's
    gas permeable for me.  I had to switch to monovision in '89  because
    of the need for bifocals; other than the initial outlay (including
    eye exam) I think I spent less than $400 for the lenses.  Even if I
    could factor in the cleaning/wetting solution accurately, my guess
    is that I'm still way ahead of the game in the $$$$ department.
    
    Just had the lenses checked last month, still no need for a pre-
    scription change.  I DO need to upgrade my glasses; prescription is
    an earlier rev than the lenses.
    
    I've gotten a bit lazy about wearing the lenses over the past few
    months (manual dexterity problems); but I know I need to start wear-
    ing them as much as possible because wearing hard lenses has been
    the only way to slow down the astismatism for me.
    
    I've observed a number of co-workers who've suffered thru nasty
    infections because they didn't clean their soft lenses properly.  
    IF I could wear the soft ones, I'd probably go for the "change
    daily" type.
    

    
    
    
    	It is a rip off. They sell the 1-2 week lense saying that
    	you'll go blind (my translation of thier words) 
    	if you keep using them because they aren't meant to last.
    
    	Who would risk their eye sight?
    
    	Then if you want to buy lens that last longer...
    	You have to pay more... But they are the same lenses?
    
    	What a rip off.
                                       

    Okay, gang, this has gone on long enough.  It's lens, doggonnit, not
    lense.  Every time I see lense I think it's flense, and I start looking
    around for the whale.
    
    NNTTM.

    
    
    I was wondering how long Dick would last...
    
    You all were saving this one for him.. right???
    
     :) :) :) :)
    

    
    Oh!  I knew that word!
    
    I read a book when I was a wee child about a girl who dressed up on 
    Halloween as a flenser.
    
    

	There is a picture of a whale's tail flapping out of the water hanging
up on the wall here..... real purty

    .24
    
    That argument about astigmatism is BS.  Go see another optometrist.
    
    I was told by one doctor FOR YEARS that I "had to wear hard or gas
    permeable lenses" because of my "astigmatism".
    
    After suffering enough, I chose an eye specialist who told me what
    hokem the argument was, and switched me to soft lenses.
    
    I have not had a change in prescription in the 3 years that I have worn
    them.
    
    Barry
    
    

    
    I wear soft astigmatic lenses, and according to every optometrist I've
    ever seen (and there have been quite a few in 19 years) they don't
    correct one's vision quite as well as hard lenses or glasses, but one
    can still wear them.
    
    

re: .21 (POLAR::RICHARDSON)

>    How much does this cost per year?

They're $1.86/pair.  I wear them only 2-3 times/week, so we figured
about $250/year.  It IS rather steep for people who'd wear them
every day, but the price will come down, and the convenience is really
very nice.

\john

    
    
    re: .30
    
    	Me too.  After wearing what they called "toric" lenses for years,
    	costing me around $200/pair, I changed doctors and got one closer
    	to home.  My new optometrist told me that I only had *slight*
    	astigmatism and it was only in one eye so I didn't really need
    	the special lenses!  She switched me to Ciba soft lenses and I've
    	been wearing those for the past 8+ years at $75/pair.
    
    	JJ
    

    Are you sure they didn't have a sale? Buy one lens for $75 get the other
    lens free?

    
    
    	Yes, I'm sure.  =)   
    

    What's the problem here? I don't see it. The manufacturer offered the
    lens' at different prices in order for more people to be able to afford
    them. This is a good win-win marketing strategy. They never made any false 
    claims. If someone were to spend the time required to find out the facts, 
    instead of using something as important as contact lens' without the 
    appropriate research, then who's fault is it? If I was going to stick 
    something to my eyes I'm sure as hell going to find out what they are made 
    of. I would have discovered that the lens' were the same and made a cost 
    effective decision. It's always those who are too lazy to make the required
    effort that complain when they find out they made the wrong decision.

    .30 I've seen lots of different doctors over the years.  Deb's 
    experience seems to be the norm for most people who have a small
    to medium degree of astigmatism.
    
    At my insistence (four years ago) I was given a shot at the soft
    lenses; it was a disaster, I couldn't see past my nose.  Trust me,
    you wouldn't want me driving a car towards you if I were wearing
    soft lenses :-}
    
    I've worn glasses since first grade; astigmatism has been a major
    problem for me since the get/go.  A doctor recommended lenses to
    my parents when I was a sophomore in high school stating what some-
    one has already mentioned, i.e. hard lenses can slow down the rate
    of progression of astigmatism.  My parents didn't have the bucks
    to spend in the 50's for what was an "iffy" proposition at that
    time.  As soon as I started working; I saved for my first pair of
    contacts and it was "love at first sight" literally ;-}  It WASN'T
    easy getting used to hard lenses 30 years ago.  I still have my
    first pair and I can't believe how huge those suckers were!!  Great
    strides have been made with hard contacts; after getting my latest
    pair I wore them for over 13 hours without any discomfort the first
    day I had them.
    
    From age 18 thru my mid 40's I needed very little change in pres-
    scriptions while wearing hard lenses.  This was a tremendous con-
    trast to having to change the left lens in my glasses every 6 months
    or so as I'd been forced to do since childhood.
    
    Two years ago I had disk surgery that rendered my left arm useless
    for quite awhile.  Time and lots of PT has restored most of the arm
    function but I do have dexterity problems if I get overly fatigued or
    my neck is bothering me.  After the surgery it wasn't feasible for
    me to wear my contacts (it got a little tricky trying to put them in;
    I've never mastered it using just one hand).  Alas, I've gotten a
    bit lazy about putting them in since the surgery, this topic has
    prompted me to get off my duff about it.
    
    I hope to get back to wearing contacts; no doubt about it, one
    definitely sees better with contacts than with glasses.
    
    I'm not knocking soft lenses; for those who can wear them and see
    properly I saw "go for it"; it just isn't feasible for me.
    

Question -
   I've been wearing eyeglasses for over 40 years and have never tried 
   contacts, largely because I detest the idea of getting anything that 
   close to my eye.

   Is it the case that contact lenses, unlike regular eyeglass lenses,
   do not come in various prescriptions?

   And if that's the case, how do they manage to correct anyone's eyesight,
   regardless of the prescription they require?

    They have different prescriptions for lenses as well as specialty
    lenses.  The soft lenses I have go in fairly easily.  I was loath to
    poke myself in the eye as well but got used to it eventually.  Some
    never overcome the discomfort.  I hated glasses though so this was a
    better soluiton for me.  
    
    Brian

    How much is Radiocaratodomy (spelled phonetically, but incorrectly I'm 
    sure). It seems that they have perfected this procedure in the 90's. Of 
    course, 20/20 vision precludes my having the proper experience to comment 
    with any aptitude.

    <--- Approx. $1500 per eye in Texas, done by a specialist.

    
    Radial Keratotomy?
    
    

    zat some kinda new tire?

    ^Approx. $1500 per eye in Texas, done by a specialist.
    
    Is that too much? It seems worth it if the correction is permanent.
    
    How much is it if a non-specialist does the procedure. You know like an
    auto mechanic.  :)

    > How much is it if a non-specialist does the procedure. You know like
    > an auto mechanic.  :)
    
    	I'll do it for free. Let's get started.
    
    ;^)

    
    Call 1-800-I-WANT-RK and talk to them.
    
    

    Who's RK?

    
    Tom...<groan>
    
    See .42.  It's not a 'who'.
    
    

    ^Tom...<groan>
    
    ^    See .42.  It's not a 'who'.
    
    
    I was only kidding. Sorry I forgot the Smilely.

    
    <blush>
    

    .51
    
    It is not a 15-minute service.  You are seeing only the smallest tip of
    a very large iceberg.
    
    I suggest you spend some time talking with a person who has had radial
    keratotomy surgery.  You will find that this person has spent many
    hours in pre-surgery counseling, in surgery, in postoperative
    evaluation, and in other activities that require the surgeon to be
    present.  The equipment involved is also not inexpensive, and the
    salaries for surgical assistants trained in anaesthesiology are a
    further cost.  There is also the consideration of liability in our
    litigious society.  Insurance for ophthalmic surgeons who do RK is not
    at all inexpensive.

    
    
    Come on, Dick......you mean we won't be seeing little fotomatlike RKS
    booths springing up in parking lots? 

    
    
    .36 I find it hard to believe that you would have researched and found
    	out this information before buying contacts.
    
    	a) After all they DO misrepresent the products. See, you don't even
    	   research what you TALK about never mind do.
    
    	b) Where would you get the information from? The company that lies
    	   to you about the product to begin with? 
    	   Hang out at bars with the Sales rep from the company until
    	   he spills the beans?  Visit the manufactoring plant?
    
    	   The doctors didn't even know, but YOU would know before buying.
    
    	
           
    	

    Aren't contact lenses controlled by the FDA? If so the information is
    available. If not, how did the original person find out about the
    problem? Oh, I forgot, HE ASKED!
    
    Do Opticians, Optometrists and Optomologists prescribe contacts without 
    knowing what they are made of?

>>              <<< Note 581.11 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "CPU Cycler" >>>

>>    Does wearing eyeglasses increase one's sex drive?

	Did anyone answer this???   Oh, great!   I just got contacts today!

	...and no, I didn't ask ANY questions....


Pat

    Pat, apparently so. See .5 for details.

>>    Pat, apparently so. See .5 for details.

	damn!

    
    
    It'll probably be more like $499.99 or $499.95.
    
    
    

    That\s right.  If you don't get your eyes fixed, you'll
    probably never see a $500/eye RKS procedure.

    Who the heck wants RKS when PRK is here?

    Gimme 10 years to make sure the bugs are out, and I'll be in that line.
    \john

PRK?

Positively Radical Keratotomy?

    Photorefractive Keratectomy.

    Excimer lasers remove (hence "ectomy") layers of cells.  The
    RKS (an "otomy") cuts, and may leave scars.

    HTH.
    \john

    
    Harney,
    
    I have a friend, a former Deccie, who had it performed 4 years ago.
    
    No scarring, no decrease in vision...it seems to have worked well.
    
    

re: .65

    Please, I surely wasn't saying I thought it was a bad/dangerous
    procedure!  I just don't like the risks/odds.

\john

I had a friend who had it done this year (the doctor who performed the
surgery was one of the two who invented it).  The process two took
"operations", the first to get the eyes "close" to 20/20 and second to
get them at 20/20.  While it was painful (waiting for the eyes to heal),
he has no regrets about having it done.  Since is now such that he doesn't
need glasses and has clear vision.

�            <<< Note 581.67 by NETRIX::thomas "The Code Warrior" >>>

  The laser surgery?  RK was discovered (inwented) by the Russians.
  Wasn't sure if the laser surgery was generally available yet.
kb

    RK was being done in the former Soviet Union for several years prior to
    gaining approval and popularity here.  I also have a firend that had it
    done.  It was about 2.5K/eye.  Your eyesight must be very bad before
    you are eleigible for the procedure.  The long term risks are mainly
    with future procedure that may be required i.e. lens replacements due
    to cataracts etc.  The cutting an hence scarring makes further surgery
    more difficult.  I have been considering it as my eyesight is well
    beyond legally blind without corrective lenses and I find using
    contacts, even extended wear, to be a pain.  The laser procedure
    supposedly will lower the cost and is less intrusive and has a better
    success rate.  They tell you that you may experience 20/20 but they
    pretty much guarantee 20/40 without corrective lenses.  You may still
    need glasses for some activities like night driving, television etc.
    but it will certainly be far better than what you had before.  
    
    Brian

I don't remember it being laser.  Basically, a special tool (8(?) diamond
blades) is used to cut the cornea in a predetermined pattern which as the
eye heals will cause cornea to reshape itself.

(I'm not interested in RK since neither it or glasses will help my vision
problem).

    
    <--- Tis a laser. Trust me.

�    <--- Tis a laser. Trust me.

  Operaton was done with scalpels(sp?) on both people I know
  who had it done.  Both also had to go back for a second cut.
  One is very pleased, the other ... not thrilled, but not
  unhappy.
kb

    Two different procedures, same basic result.  The laser surgery is newer.  
    
    Brian

    
    
    	Ain't no way I'd be lettin' anyone near *my* eyeballs with
    	a scalpel!!
    
    	{shudder}
    
    
    	I'll stick with my contacts tyvm.
    

    RK is with scalpel.

    PRK is with laser.

    hth, nnttm.
    \john

    
    	me too, Judy.  I'd rather wear my contacts than undergo eye
    	surgery.  Are there cases where such surgery is a necessity?
    
    

What gives me the heaves is that you have to be *awake* during this procedure.
Just relax, while the professionals come to slice up your eyeballs.

uh uh. Not _this_ little black duck.  


\C

    afraid of the bill?