So Safe, So Clear, So...

[TLG]

... misleading? I know we've already discussed this some but I got a flyer from my lab today promoting Crizal UV stating this little nugget...

"...designed to protect your patients eyes from dangerous UV light coming from the backside of the lens , ensuring their visual health over time."

1. Lenses don't emit UV from the backside (or anywhere else, frankly); it may pass through the backside, but certainly doesn't 'come' from the backside.
2. Blocking UV, even if you wore a full face shield of UV inhibitor CANNOT "ensure" visual health. Merriam-Webster defines "ensure" as "sure, certain, safe" - with synonyms like "guarantee".

[Uilleann]

If you spend a little time educating yourself on what the lens actually does, you'll understand just how ridiculous your first statement sounds. I will agree that the use of "ensure" isn't fully accurate in this context, so you get to chalk up a point to semantics.

[optical24/7]

Be nice Bri..

They are talking about reflected UV off the back.

[idispense]

Be nice Bri..

They are talking about reflected UV off the back.

Even with UV protection on the front and back side of the lens how much exposure is there to UV from the air gaps around the frame ? Does UV not also leak into the eye from the top of the frame as well as the bottom ?

Assuming that a person has never had UV protection in the past then what is the accumulated effect from all the years of no protection ? Will those years of no protection overide that effect of adding UV now ?

If air is a gas and UV travels through that medium or with that medium then are we not constantly surrounded by UV with or without glasses ?

Has anyone studied the accumulated effects vs the later in life short term benefits ?

[optical24/7]

If you have skin cancer cut off, does your Dr. tell you to start using uv sun lotion? Of course. Is blocking as much UV from our bodies as possible good? I haven't heard a dermatologist nor cancer Dr disagree. UV damage is cumulative. It's never too late to consider UV protection.




Now then, as was stated on the other thread about this product, don't use it if you feel there is no benefit to your patients. Just be prepared to explain to your patients that ask, why you didn't use/suggest it to them.

[Uilleann]

*facepalm*

It's complete insanity to me that so much energy is wasted trying to bash a product that:

A. The bashers clearly don't understand a thing it's true functional methodology.

and

B. Isn't even released yet.

To say nothing of the simple fact that any measurable reduction in UV directed to the eye/adnexa can be nothing but good. But in the interest of puffing out chests in the race to see who can out bash Essilor first/fastest/most completely...

This feels like the GOP primaries echoed in eyecare. But perhaps that's a different thread here I missed?

[Pogu]

It's been available from milroy for a week or more.
Nothing to report as far as eyelid Burns, will be interesting to look for an increase in "coon eyes" come summer.

[Wes]

I can see no reason not to offer it. If it helps, good. If it doesn't, I hope it didn't cost extra. I too, wouldn't want to be the one that didn't offer a product that someone would have purchased.

[Wes]

And if its successful, everyone else will do it or claim it within a year.

[Nikolay Angelov]

If you spend a little time educating yourself on what the lens actually does

Very few lens manufacturers release objective technical data, based on which an informed decision could be made.

What is more, the information released is often distorted in two general ways:
1. Praise the positive and don't ever mention any negative attribute. Even children know that every product has good and bad things about it and that's why this strategy raises distrust.

2. Over-generalize the benefits.
A new feature creates significant improvement for 5% of the users (25% wider progressive near zone etc.) but the message is "Feature "X" for 25% wider near zone"
And the scope went from 5% of the users to everybody.

Those aren't "technically" lies ... they just withheld part of the information.
And that deceitful behavior once caught seriously drains the "trust" account of the lens manufacturer.

So how are people supposed to form an opinion based on facts when information is withheld and distorted and "trust" while being deceived.

A third and possibly worst offense is the "health and safety" card.
Implying medical dangers and promising solutions but without any peer reviewed clinical research and other scientific proof.

This plays on people "scare card" to buy and on opticians "litigious scare card" to sell.

With the above and more actions, many companies have proven themselves untrustworthy and are treated accordingly.

PS: I will be very happy to fallow your advice and "spend a little time educating yourself" if you kindly point me to a good source of objective and trustworthy education materials.

[Uilleann]

Very few lens manufacturers release objective technical data, based on which an informed decision could be made.

What is more, the information released is often distorted in two general ways:
1. Praise the positive and don't ever mention any negative attribute. Even children know that every product has good and bad things about it and that's why this strategy raises distrust.

2. Over-generalize the benefits.
A new feature creates significant improvement for 5% of the users (25% wider progressive near zone etc.) but the message is "Feature "X" for 25% wider near zone"
And the scope went from 5% of the users to everybody.

Those aren't "technically" lies ... they just withheld part of the information.
And that deceitful behavior once caught seriously drains the "trust" account of the lens manufacturer.

So how are people supposed to form an opinion based on facts when information is withheld and distorted and "trust" while being deceived.

A third and possibly worst offense is the "health and safety" card.
Implying medical dangers and promising solutions but without any peer reviewed clinical research and other scientific proof.

This plays on people "scare card" to buy and on opticians "litigious scare card" to sell.

With the above and more actions, many companies have proven themselves untrustworthy and are treated accordingly.

PS: I will be very happy to fallow your advice and "spend a little time educating yourself" if you kindly point me to a good source of objective and trustworthy education materials.

OK - I'll bite.

So almost every manufacturer is just as culpable when it comes to skewed data. Fair enough. No reason to continually pounce on one for no other reason than "they're big".

#1 - Of course UV reduction in any form is good. The bad is precisely.....what here exactly?

#2 - How can one over-generalize UV reduction? Either it is or it's not.

I'm not sure what the specific "lies" or withheld information are you're referring to in relation to Crizal UV, but perhaps you can enlighten us? It's pretty straight forward to many dispensers. But please, feel free to share the particulars of how you have been deceived here.

Funny you mention health and safety as being somehow "offensive". Most of us take it pretty seriously. Well, ok, my wife doesn't, and she has the pterygium to show for it. Since we've been married she now knows better and uses sun protection much of the time. But as dispensers and ECPs, our role should be to educate and inform all patients about the long tearm health implications of particular behaviors, such as improper sun care and the eyes. There are numerous papers, studies and "scientific proof" that show UV = bad for human tissue. If you think it's all baloney and just a method to scare a few more dollars out of patients...that's certainly your own personal prerogative.

I'm surprised you need the push, but try talking to your Essilor rep or lab as a start, and work out from there. I'm sure you can ask plenty of objective questions and get the answers you're looking for. Your own trust issues I can't help you with - for any manufacturer. I get you have to take marketing with a grain of salt at times, but the anti-Essilor paranoia running rampant on this board is beyond ridiculous.

[braheem24]

Wonder if my frames reduce U.V?

...or maybe wraps for all rxs should be prescribed to avoid UV litigation.

Better yet we need to wear black clothing to reduce U.V. reflection to our eyes too.

[Wes]

I think I need to sell my convertible and get a tank. And some desert locust goggles. I kid, I kid.
Sure more uv protection is always better. But how much better? I think that's really the question. 10%? .0001%? What's the Price difference? Does anyone have information about a peer reviewed resource? Where's the data for the ECP to evaluate? I'd love to offer a better product. Where's the data?

[PhiTrace]

If it makes me money I'll sell it.

[Wes]

I think there's a difference between offering a product and selling it. I'll offer as many products as I have available, with recommendations. But to really SELL, I have to believe in the product. Maybe I'm too honest to be a good salesman. I'm not too honest to be a good optician.

[anthonyf1509]

I cannot post pricing here,
But it is more expensive at an essilor lab we use sparingly, but our current biggest supplier said no increase.

the essilor rep had a pamphlet stating everything everyone has discussed and said it'll cost more so make sure we adjust pricing.

I could barely ask some questions as he rushed out. But mainly, I just wondered why now? Surely they had this down pat before? He stated no differences in this process, so of course im skeptical.

Just wanted some facts, there should be benefits associated with costs just as a consumer would expect.
If its some added uv protection, ok fine but be reasonable, and able to explain yourself. Don't just use, "it can only be good for you, so why are you fighting it? Argument."

Do we believe everything we hear or are told just because it's potentially good?

[Wes]

Right? Otherwise am I buying a pig in a poke?

[PhiTrace]

I'll sell a pig in a poke if your buying. Look the benefits could be the same as they have always been if the company is marketing it and making people aware of it, aren't they adding value to a product. I don't see anyone talking about UV, spring is right around the corner and spring break, then summer, this could give your practice a great boost.

[Wes]

Again, if they create a demand, I'll offer the product. When they sell me on it, I'll SELL it.

I think you and I Mean the same thing, but maybe we're using different terminology. By SELL, when I decide it's the best product for the patient, I find a way to get the patient to agree.

[WFruit]

Ok, here are my questons:

Do lenses which inherently block UV light (Poly, Trivex, et. al.) block it by absorbtion or reflection (or both)?

Does a CR-39 lens with A/R transmit more UV light through the lens than one without A/R?

[Nikolay Angelov]

I'm not singling out Essilor or the particular coating.
This is more of an explanation for some of the distrust and "bashing" we see sometimes.

Most of us take it (health and safety) pretty seriously.

Taking seriously to me means to evaluate the significance of a given treatment.

Without a sense of proportion and significance of the problem and solutions we could easily get to: "UV is bad, wear astronaut's suits or die".

I actually quite like the idea of the coating spectrum improvement. Which is why i bothered to find more information as in:

Anti-reflective coatings reflect ultraviolet radiation
Karl Citek

Optometry (St. Louis, Mo.) 1 March 2008 (volume 79 issue 3 Pages 143-148 DOI: 10.1016/j.optm.2007.08.019)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full article [PDF]:
http://download.journals.elsevierhea...3907005775.pdf

Abstract:
Anti-reflective (AR) coatings provide numerous visual benefits to spectacle wearers. However, coating designers and manufacturers seem to have placed little or no emphasis on reflectance of wavelengths outside the visible spectrum. Ultraviolet (UV) radiation from sources behind the wearer can reflect from the back lens surface toward the wearer’s eye. Various clear lens materials, with and without AR coatings, were tested for their transmittance and reflectance properties. Although the transmittance benefits of AR coatings were confirmed, most coatings were found to reflect UV radiation at unacceptably high levels. Tinted sun lenses also were tested with similar results. Frame and lens parameters were evaluated, confirming that eyewear that incorporates a high wrap frame and high base curve lenses can prevent UV radiation from reaching the eye. The findings strongly suggest that clear, flat lenses should not be dispensed for long-term use in sunny environments, even if clip-on tints are provided.
http://www.optometryjaoa.com/article...577-5/abstract

Here is some more information on UV + visible spectrum AR coatings:
http://www.edmundoptics.com/technica...tings?&viewall

And they even added the coating curves so you know exactly what's going on (coating curve for UV-VIS coating 250 -700nm):
http://www.edmundoptics.com/techsupp...curv_48804.pdf

[Chris Ryser]

Ok, here are my questons:

Do lenses which inherently block UV light (Poly, Trivex, et. al.) block it by absorbtion or reflection (or both)?

The is no blocking UV rays by reflection..............if they are not absorbed they will be reflected and not blocked, but transmitted

ab·sorb (b-sôrb, -zôrb)tr.v. ab·sorbed, ab·sorb·ing, ab·sorbs 1. To take (something) in through or as through pores or interstices.
2. To occupy the full attention, interest, or time of; engross. See Synonyms at monopolize.
3. To retain (radiation or sound, for example) wholly, without reflection or transmission.
4. To take in; assimilate: immigrants who were absorbed into the social mainstream.
5. To learn; acquire: "Matisse absorbed the lesson and added to it a new language of color" (Peter Plagen).
6. To receive (an impulse) without echo or recoil: a fabric that absorbs sound; a bumper that absorbs impact.
7. To assume or pay for (a cost or costs).
8. To endure; accommodate: couldn't absorb the additional hardships.
9. To use up; consume: The project has absorbed all of our department's resources.

[Darryl Meister]

The is no blocking UV rays by reflection..............

Crizal UV products work by destructive interference, not absorption. Essentially, the AR stack has been tuned to reduce reflectivity in part of the UV spectrum in addition to the normal visible spectrum.

The optical principles involved are sound, although some may question how much direct sunlight is actually reflected by the back surface of the lens, since the wearer's head actually obstructs much of the light that would otherwise reflect off the back surface and into the eye.

Best regards,
Darryl

[CuriousCat]

The findings strongly suggest that clear, flat lenses should not be dispensed for long-term use in sunny environments, even if clip-on tints are provided.
http://www.optometryjaoa.com/article...577-5/abstract

Here is some more information on UV + visible spectrum AR coatings:
http://www.edmundoptics.com/technica...tings?&viewall

And they even added the coating curves so you know exactly what's going on (coating curve for UV-VIS coating 250 -700nm):
http://www.edmundoptics.com/techsupp...curv_48804.pdf[/QUOTE]


Who's dispensing flat lenses these days?

[MikeAurelius]

Who's dispensing flat lenses these days?

Do scuba masks count?