IZON Wavefront Prog. Lenses:Post your experience

[lens dude]

Craig,

I have spoken with several reps from Ophthonix. The explanation that I was given is that you were one of the top if not top sellers of iZon lenses in the very beginning. However, when it came time to pay for the machines, there were "issues". Without payment they took back their property and pi$$ed you off pretty royally it sounds like.

Comments???

[AWTECH]

Craig,

I have spoken with several reps from Ophthonix. The explanation that I was given is that you were one of the top if not top sellers of iZon lenses in the very beginning. However, when it came time to pay for the machines, there were "issues". Without payment they took back their property and pi$$ed you off pretty royally it sounds like.

Comments???

OK, so even if Craig did send the machines back, for whatever reason, does that make the lens work better?

I have not seen any understandable explainations as to how the lens works. The goo is a unexplainable part of their lens.

I think most people selling this lens would be reluctant to complete the equipment purchase if they found out there was a question about the technology actually doing what it was represented to beable to do.

[xiaowei]

I have not seen any understandable explainations as to how the lens works. The goo is a unexplainable part of their lens.

Blendowske here in Germany with the university of Darmstadt made some measurements on specially ordered Izon lenses with a specified amount of coma and trefoil. He found no HOA correction in the finished lenses within 0.01 dpt, however power and cylinders were accurate to 0.01 dpt, better than the usual 0.25 dpt.

He has a good paper on this (only in German, sorry, but "nice pictures")

http://www.fbmn.fh-darmstadt.de/~ble...Blendowske.pdf

On this, Jethmalani of Opthonix replied that you do not need to "fully" correct HOA for an optimum result, but if there is no correction at all?
Blendowske's reply on that reply is accordingly titled "The emperors new glasses".

http://www.fbmn.fh-darmstadt.de/~ble...%2008-2007.pdf

This Izon issue also caused some stir here in germany, here are 2 papers by another author (the second on HOA corrections in contact lesens though)

http://www.hfak.de/download/Wesemann...0BG%202007.pdf

http://www.hfak.de/download/Wesemann...OZ%202007k.pdf

Hope you find it interesting and helpful!

小卫

[rinselberg]

Using the Z-View Aberrometer: At least five clean scans for each of the patient's eyes.

Dr. Gindoff: When I began using the technology, I prescribed directly from the iZon printouts. Some patients complained of less optimal vision. But we got around that by scanning each eye five times instead of three times. Ophthonix recommends three readings with the Z-View Aberrometer and only recommends modifications of some sphere with select patients. In my experience, the more scans you make, the more data the computer can analyze and the better off the patient will be. If the technician can't get five scans, I won't use the data and we'll refract normally. If I have five clean scans, I'm fairly comfortable that we can use the data to prescribe directly from the Z-View Aberrometer. This doesn't mean that the doctor's judgment is ignored in the prescribing phase (i.e. a patient's been wearing -0.75 cylinder and now the Z-View measures -1.75 cylinder). Some "doctoring" still occurs to determine if I want to prescribe all or some of that cylinder power. Many times, I'll modify the sphere finding for the very same reason. But what's important to understand is that this data is accurate if you get five clean scans.

The iZon Progressive lens: "I will make them famous. You will know their names."

Dr. Karpecki: How do you approach wavefront progressives? Do you recommend them for early presbyopes? Late presbyopes? Are there any issues associated with converting existing progressive addition lens (PAL) wearers?

Dr. Lowe: We've fit almost everyone who's been wearing PALs into one of the new wavefront PALs, and we've had very few issues. We've had some comments about the corridor. Patients say their vision is great in the iZon, but they feel more restricted than they were in the Physio 360. They need a little more time to adapt. In addition, with experience, we've improved our readings, making sure everything is in alignment. So now we have more success. However, we have the greatest success with first-time PAL wearers because it's easier for them to adapt.

Dr. Quon: Presently, I position the iZon progressive as the premium progressive. I firmly believe in the lens because I wear it. I have several top-of-the-line progressives, including many wavefront-guided and free-form designs. Most of these new progressives are excellent products, but when compared to the iZon progressives, the iZons provide me with a wider intermediate distance, larger reading area, clearer distance vision and greater visual comfort.

Initially, you'll experience what I call a little bit of visual overload when you wear them the first day. But you'll quickly adapt to the clarity of vision. Other than that, I think the iZon progressive is excellent.

From Optometric Management; June 2007.

[rinselberg]

It just hit me: The question that everyone has been asking is how is it possible for the iZon lens to correct for the patient's HOA over the full range of gaze angles?

Maybe that's not as important as it seems.

Speculating that the HOA is only well corrected in a small zone of "supervision" when the patient is looking directly or nearly directly through the center of the lens... maybe that works.

Could it be that when patients are most concerned about something in their field of view--like an oncoming headlight when driving at night--they are prone to move either their eye gaze or their head position (or both) and bring that "something" close to Gaze Angle Zero... straight through the center of the lens..?

That might blind them if it's an oncoming headlight, but perhaps they just bring it close enough to the small "supervision" zone in the center of the lens to be able to resolve it: To see the headlight clearly without the distortion that would otherwise be caused by their HOA.

Erik's Delicafe offers Secret Goo^® in a number of their sandwiches... is there one near you?

[xiaowei]

If the technician can't get five scans, I won't use the data and we'll refract normally. If I have five clean scans, I'm fairly comfortable that we can use the data to prescribe directly from the Z-View Aberrometer. This doesn't mean that the doctor's judgment is ignored in the prescribing phase (i.e. a patient's been wearing -0.75 cylinder and now the Z-View measures -1.75 cylinder). Some "doctoring" still occurs to determine if I want to prescribe all or some of that cylinder power. Many times, I'll modify the sphere finding for the very same reason. But what's important to understand is that this data is accurate if you get five clean scans.

Sorry, but all this does not sound very scientific. Statistical accuracy is not much improved if based on 5 instead of 3 measurements and sometimes disagreement of to 1 dpt occurs and requires unspecified "doctoring"?

At least in the quote based on the Zeiss system, it was claimed that surprisingly the large cylinder that the machine predicted trurned out to be the best when actually put into a test frame.

Ignoring evidence for the moment, if they really COULD correct HOA, wouldn´t those also require "doctoring" too for best results? Clearly, the opthometrist won´t "doctor" them, but only because he has no other way to verify them, but that´s not really the point here!

小卫

[xiaowei]

It just hit me: The question that everyone has been asking is how is it possible for the iZon lens to correct for the patient's HOA over the full range of gaze angles?

Maybe that's not as important as it seems.

Speculating that the HOA is only well corrected in a small zone of "supervision" when the patient is looking directly or nearly directly through the center of the lens... maybe that works.

No, not really (besides, your speculation is not a new point). The big problem with HOA correction is that if you really want to reduce it significantly (say better 50%) it will only work in a VERY small pointlike zone that is surrounded by a zone were the seeing is actually WORSE!!

That´s the "unscharfe Ringzone" in the above graph. Without really having tested it, it would think that´s pretty annoying for the viewer.

Ophtonix patents actually second that on careful reading, BUT, and here it´s were the "bull****" begins, claim that you can circumvent this by "blending" the HOA with the rest of the lens. This is, as also the cited paper concludes, mathematically impossible, resp. if you begin to blend, you also quickly loose the HOA correction, as you would like to blend in the outer area of the pupil, but it´s just there where most of the HOA "effects" happen and need to be retained. (There must already be a similar posting of mine about this fact somewhere up at the beginning of that long but interesting thread)

In other words, this is also related to the "sandbox argument" resp. to progressive design, that you cannot really get rid of aberrations in sum, but only move them to another place. However, the usual sandbox argument is flawed in that it does include a "locality" factor, respectively does not limit the "size" of the sandbox.

Depeding on the order of the aberration you want to move to another place (and in traditional PAL it´s "only" cylinder, not higher orders as here), you cannot move those aberrations as far as you would like.

Imagine, if it were so (in PAL design), one could simply start with a VERY large blank and move those evil astigmatism and wrong power WAY out to the edge of the blank and simply cut off that part, you wcould end up with a perfect PAL, ultrawide zones!! (Maybe I should get a patent on that idea, **** already posted it here!?) It is obvious that it cannot work that way.

In HOA correction, the sandbox you can benefit of is really only in the order of the pupil size , resp. only a few milimeters.

小卫

[AWTECH]

No, not really (besides, your speculation is not a new point). The big problem with HOA correction is that if you really want to reduce it significantly (say better 50%) it will only work in a VERY small pointlike zone that is surrounded by a zone were the seeing is actually WORSE!!

That´s the "unscharfe Ringzone" in the above graph. Without really having tested it, it would think that´s pretty annoying for the viewer.

Ophtonix patents actually second that on careful reading, BUT, and here it´s were the "bull****" begins, claim that you can circumvent this by "blending" the HOA with the rest of the lens. This is, as also the cited paper concludes, mathematically impossible, resp. if you begin to blend, you also quickly loose the HOA correction, as you would like to blend in the outer area of the pupil, but it´s just there where most of the HOA "effects" happen and need to be retained. (There must already be a similar posting of mine about this fact somewhere up at the beginning of that long but interesting thread)

In other words, this is also related to the "sandbox argument" resp. to progressive design, that you cannot really get rid of aberrations in sum, but only move them to another place. However, the usual sandbox argument is flawed in that it does include a "locality" factor, respectively does not limit the "size" of the sandbox.

Depeding on the order of the aberration you want to move to another place (and in traditional PAL it´s "only" cylinder, not higher orders as here), you cannot move those aberrations as far as you would like.

Imagine, if it were so (in PAL design), one could simply start with a VERY large blank and move those evil astigmatism and wrong power WAY out to the edge of the blank and simply cut off that part, you wcould end up with a perfect PAL, ultrawide zones!! (Maybe I should get a patent on that idea, **** already posted it here!?) It is obvious that it cannot work that way.

In HOA correction, the sandbox you can benefit of is really only in the order of the pupil size , resp. only a few milimeters.

小卫

Thank you for your post on the Izon Lens. These are known facts:

1-The company has raised over $50 million
2-The founder of the company has left
3-I have yet to see any confirmation from outside the company that makes the Izon lens that their PAL is any better than a good freeform PAL
4-I know they actually place a freeformed PAL design on the back of their PAL lens.

Conclusion: This was a very expensive way to make a lens that is apparently not that much, if any better than a good backside PAL design.

My assumption: The Goo does probably have some valid science, however when commercialized it was discovered the thickness of the goo needed would have made for a very thick lens and/or they discovered that the eye movement does not lend itself to the successful use of this technology. I would guess these conclusions, (or others) were reached after the investment capital was raised.

I have been willing for years to try to understand how their technology works and to date no one has been able to help me.

I hear comments like an above post about 5 readings and then ordering the lenses. Which of the 5 different reading is correct?

How do the HOA change if over the counter drops are used before testing?

[rinselberg]

I'm hoping (for the sake of science) that one or more prospective iZon retailers (or optical dispensers that could reasonably present themselves to Ophthonix as prospective iZon retailers), having studied our long running discussions on OptiBoard, will put these questions to Ophthonix in a precise, assertive and well-organized manner and then report whatever they can discover on our forum.

It would be great if someone could translate (or find translations) the articles that were posted (above; by "xiaowei") from German to English.

I translated a couple of paragraphs using the Altavista "Babel Fish" automatic translation program, but what comes out in English hardly does justice to the original German.

[xiaowei]

It would be great if someone could translate (or find translations) the articles that were posted (above; by "xiaowei") from German to English.

I translated a couple of paragraphs using the Altavista "Babel Fish" automatic translation program, but what comes out in English hardly does justice to the original German.

I´m unfortunatelly too busy in the moment to do the job. Those are pretty nice but long papers.

I actually know that guy Blendowske, he used to work for the same company as myself (high precision microscope optics and similar) before he switched to ophthalmology at Darmstadt university. I already pointed him to this list, it however, I cukd not find an english version of his paper on his website. I could ask directly.

One point to add, in the "reply to the reply" he notes that (it seems in a second run, after the initial papers results that were based on glasses acquired through a local optician) because of his complaints that there was no apparent HOA correction, Opthonix directly supplied him with a new set of glasses that DID some HOA correction (about 50% of what was specified), but because of missing/(wrong?) spherocylinder in that case visual testing only gave mediocre results. However, it was apparent that a decentering by only about 2mm made the HOA "rise drastically" as he writes.

So as also Awtech assumes, if Ophthonix really needs, they CAN do some HOA correction, but because of all the problems when used in spectacles, it is not really put into the costumer product, but not really told about...
(Slightly changing over the last month....)

Regarding all the overly positive comments of how clear the viewing is, those remind me a bit of commercials for cleaners of washing powders ("Our white is whiter than white/others")

小卫

[Darryl Meister]

Speculating that the HOA is only well corrected in a small zone of "supervision" when the patient is looking directly or nearly directly through the center of the lens... maybe that works.

The issues are the same. Suppose you have a pupil-sized "sweet spot" of high-order aberration correction... This sweet spot will be immediately surrounded by a ring of even more significant low-order aberrations. Consequently, as the eye rotates only a few millimeters from the center of the lens, during a small gaze change, head turn, etcetera, vision would be even worse than it was without any high-order correction.

[AWTECH]

The issues are the same. Suppose you have a pupil-sized "sweet spot" of high-order aberration correction... This sweet spot will be immediately surrounded by a ring of even more significant low-order aberrations. Consequently, as the eye rotates only a few millimeters from the center of the lens, during a small gaze change, head turn, etcetera, vision would be even worse than it was without any high-order correction.

Darryl; I am glad to see your comment to this subject. Have you been able to read any data from the makers of the Izon Lens or any other source that validates any of their claims regarding HOA?

[Craig]

Craig,

I have spoken with several reps from Ophthonix. The explanation that I was given is that you were one of the top if not top sellers of iZon lenses in the very beginning. However, when it came time to pay for the machines, there were "issues". Without payment they took back their property and pi$$ed you off pretty royally it sounds like.

Comments???

First, who are you? I find it odd that your first post questions me about my Ophthonix dealings! It makes no difference, the truth is the truth!

I was the top selling office in the world and when it came time to pay the extra $60,000, in addition to the $30,000 we had already paid, we had realized the product did not work as advertised and the company had no intentions to fix the issues; they took back the machines. That is not sour grapes, just a realization that we had been selling "smoke and fu fu dust" to our clients and it was time to eat crow and admit we had been had by a group of unethical business people. The inventor and former CEO was removed from office once the truth started to come out. I have personally spoken to the new CEO and he also continues to hide the truth. All of the sales reps were told to send back any material that included any reference to programming the GOO, since it was fraud and never happened. It is a bunch of patents that has no use in the practical world.

We purchased the machines with the understanding that the Izon lens was programmed, like a CD, to include correction for HIGH ORDER ABBERATIONS; THERE IS NO SUCH PROGRAMMING AND IT IS ALL A FRAUD FROM DAY ONE. THAT IS THE TRUTH!

The Izon lens was the only free form product we have ever had any problems with patient satisfaction. I took back over 100 pair from unhappy clients; who should be upset, me or the poor clients we sold a product that did not contain correction for any high order abberations as we were told when we purchased the equipment. I have 15 on my desk right now.

I will give you the cell phone of 3 different ex employees of Ophthonix who will tell you my story is 100% accurate. They all left because of the fraud that was being committed on the industry and did not to be a part of it. Ask the company to see the letter sent to all accounts that explained the fraud in great detail. It was and is 100% accurate!!!1

Thanks for allowing me to inform more people of the fraud being commited by Ophthonix on the optical industry.

I stand behind the truth and can prove every word I have printed!!

If I was not telling the truth, you can guarantee the lawyers for Ophthonix would have called by now. I look forward to them denying anything in writing and trying to punish me for telling the truth.



Craig:angry:

[Craig]

Blendowske here in Germany with the university of Darmstadt made some measurements on specially ordered Izon lenses with a specified amount of coma and trefoil. He found no HOA correction in the finished lenses within 0.01 dpt, however power and cylinders were accurate to 0.01 dpt, better than the usual 0.25 dpt.


He has a good paper on this (only in German, sorry, but "nice pictures")

http://www.fbmn.fh-darmstadt.de/~ble...Blendowske.pdf

On this, Jethmalani of Opthonix replied that you do not need to "fully" correct HOA for an optimum result, but if there is no correction at all?
Blendowske's reply on that reply is accordingly titled "The emperors new glasses".

http://www.fbmn.fh-darmstadt.de/~ble...%2008-2007.pdf

This Izon issue also caused some stir here in germany, here are 2 papers by another author (the second on HOA corrections in contact lesens though)

http://www.hfak.de/download/Wesemann...0BG%202007.pdf

http://www.hfak.de/download/Wesemann...OZ%202007k.pdf

Hope you find it interesting and helpful!

小卫

It is hard to find something that does not exist; does this finally prove that I have been telling the truth for over 1 year on this forum. IZON IS A FRAUD AND HAS NEVER PROGRAMMED THE LENS TO CORECT FOR HOA.
Let the truth be my witness!!
Craig

[eyepod]

That is not accurate, any part of the RX can be modified. We did thoousands of test on folks and the majority had to have the Dr. change the findings of the machine. The machine is an autorefractor and has nothing to do witht he production of the Izon lens.

To Craig: Maybe this is why you had so many problems. The cyl and axis should not be altered. The sphere can be changed as needed. Call and ask for yourself.

Please call me at my store to get you a set of lenses.
239-482-8763
Craig

[rinselberg]

I have a suggestion:

1. Start with the Z-View autorefractor Rx or "iPrint" for a solid iZon lens candidate--as defined by the Ophthonix candidate profile criteria. An SV I would think; not a PAL. To eliminate some variables.
2. Use the iPrint sphere, cylinder and axis numbers to make a 1.6 index SV lens pair with whatever is your best or "go to" AR. Best not to have a drilled or an odd-sized frame (so don't use an odd-sized patient) or anything much beyond the norm.
3. Use the same iPrint to obtain the corresponding iZon Single Vision lens pair.
4. Set up a blind test (or a double blind test, if you're clever) comparing the patient's frame with the usual 1.6 lenses and a duplicate of the patient's frame with the iZon lenses.
5. Post you're findings.

I don't know about prism.. I'm thinking: How could an experiment reveal something about what is actually going on with the "secret goo" inside the iZon lenses? Best to have the iZon lenses made first. Check the center/edge thickness, base curve (you know better than me..) and do whatever you can to have the other 1.6 lens pair as equivalent as possible.

Ophthonix iZon lens material (front and back surfaces of laminate)

• Specific Gravity 1.34 g/cm³
• Refractive Index 1.6
• Abbe 42
• as documented

And now for some levity.. this thread could use it!

Does anybody really know what time it is? Chicago Transit Authority put that question on a lot of people's minds with their double-platinum recording debut in 1969. Does anybody really know what time is? That's a different question. The berg offers a layman's look at how one group of theoretical physicists is trying to connect the dots in a most intriguing way. If you're in, select ("click") the album art...

[xiaowei]

as documented

WOW, I´m impressed!! It´s incredible what is taught at the American Board of Opticianry, everything about the HOA, the Zernikes etcetc. is great, but the bull**** begins the moment it is (even implicitely) claimed that these data data can somehow be "smeared" and "magnified" over the whole lense surface. OR does it not? The article is somehow not very clear about what is done, but the "goo" is mentioned definitely. If it is not for HOA and the end product only has "optimized" high precision spher and cyls, why name it at all?

XW

[AWTECH]

WOW, I´m impressed!! It´s incredible what is taught at the American Board of Opticianry, everything about the HOA, the Zernikes etcetc. is great, but the bull**** begins the moment it is (even implicitely) claimed that these data data can somehow be "smeared" and "magnified" over the whole lense surface. OR does it not? The article is somehow not very clear about what is done, but the "goo" is mentioned definitely. If it is not for HOA and the end product only has "optimized" high precision spher and cyls, why name it at all?

XW

This course is amazing. No actual facts again about how the goo works. It just says, yes HOA do exist and then they say they program the goo to correct them. I want to know how the H*** does this work when the eye move front straight ahead.

IZON experts please explain. (Is there such a thing as an IZON expert or did they all leave the building?)

[bhess25]

at some point a rep from the company is going to come with "ahh just kidding"...after all it is nothing more than a big joke!

[chip anderson]

Seems to me that once upon a time it was illegal to real someone's credit information. Looks like somewhere in this thread Craig or Izon have real good grounds for a lawsuit. If so the place to argue it out isn't on the internet (It could predudice either's case).

You can say what you wan't about a lens product, but an individual or company's credit dealings? I don't think so.

Chip

[Christosfer]

Interestingly enough I am with a new clinic, very large and successful, and we are having a meeting on Monday about the possibility of taking on this product.
I want to raise some good questions, but I don't want to sound like an idiot either.
Any suggestions on how I might raise some questions?

I am thinking of printing some of Xiaowei's writings and suggesting that they check into it further.

[AWTECH]

Interestingly enough I am with a new clinic, very large and successful, and we are having a meeting on Monday about the possibility of taking on this product.
I want to raise some good questions, but I don't want to sound like an idiot either.
Any suggestions on how I might raise some questions?

I am thinking of printing some of Xiaowei's writings and suggesting that they check into it further.

I have been asking for someone to explain if the abberometer sends infomation used in manufacturing the lenses, other than the patient sphere, cylinder and axis, etc. If the answer is yes what is being sent? Does this infomation affect the surface being produced?

Wavefront???, they previously claimed HOA correction. How is this accomplished or is it? Is a PAL IZON better than another PAL because of the HOA correction or just a great backsurface lens design for the PAL?

I have yet to have anyone from the company that produces the Izon to users of this lens explain how this lens works to correct HOA.

[bhess25]

placebo

[DR.P]

I absolutely hate to get back into this....no, there are no IZON experts. NO...the company won't tell you what the heck is up with the lens.
BUT...day after day....I dispense these lenses to absolutely extatic patients. As I dispensed one today to a patient, another was standing next to her ...the second patient had hers for perhaps six months. AS the first exclaimed how wonderful they were, the second said...just wait til you wear them a while. Both have been my patients for many many years. Both have worn the same Rx from me for years and years...and both stood there raving about the lenses. Smoke and mirrors...placebo...I really have no idea. All I can tell you is that almost no patient is not impressed. What does that mean...Who knows, but I believe that placebo only goes so far.
Now for what I started to write about. If its all BS...why is Zeiss "supposedly" selling a similar product in Europe. If it is all BS...why are they "supposedly" bringing it to the USA?
How silly will it look when someone else comes out with an abberation correcting lens based on an abberometer after stating that it can't be done.
I'll just sit back and watch.
For the moment, the lenses seem to make patients happy. For years, Essilor, Zeiss, Hoya, Kodak etc...have come out year after year with a better lens...can you imagine if we all argued this much about all of those lenses? Essilor claims you need their gadget to "measure eye movements".
Its a pretty cut throat industry and I am always looking for a slight edge.
This gives me something that seems to make a patient happy. Is that so terrible? Like I said, every company claims something about their lens.

[AWTECH]

I absolutely hate to get back into this....no, there are no IZON experts. NO...the company won't tell you what the heck is up with the lens.
BUT...day after day....I dispense these lenses to absolutely extatic patients. As I dispensed one today to a patient, another was standing next to her ...the second patient had hers for perhaps six months. AS the first exclaimed how wonderful they were, the second said...just wait til you wear them a while. Both have been my patients for many many years. Both have worn the same Rx from me for years and years...and both stood there raving about the lenses. Smoke and mirrors...placebo...I really have no idea. All I can tell you is that almost no patient is not impressed. What does that mean...Who knows, but I believe that placebo only goes so far.
Now for what I started to write about. If its all BS...why is Zeiss "supposedly" selling a similar product in Europe. If it is all BS...why are they "supposedly" bringing it to the USA?
How silly will it look when someone else comes out with an abberation correcting lens based on an abberometer after stating that it can't be done.
I'll just sit back and watch.
For the moment, the lenses seem to make patients happy. For years, Essilor, Zeiss, Hoya, Kodak etc...have come out year after year with a better lens...can you imagine if we all argued this much about all of those lenses? Essilor claims you need their gadget to "measure eye movements".
Its a pretty cut throat industry and I am always looking for a slight edge.
This gives me something that seems to make a patient happy. Is that so terrible? Like I said, every company claims something about their lens.

I understand that the patients were very happy with their lenses, I assume they were both PAL wearers, and I would also expect these patients would not see any differently if the lens blanks used were substitued for spherical semi-finished non-goo included blanks that these patients could also have the opportunity to rave about their new lenses.