Daily Disposable Lawsuit

CaptainKremen · #1 (**permalink**) 07-22-2008, 09:46 AM

It seems there are people out there who think that Johnson & Johnson is "scamming" people by taking contact lenses that you only have to replace once a month, putting them in a different box with a different name on it and saying that the ones in the new box need to be replaced every day.

Strange thing is, I did a Google search for any kind of evidence of legal action against J & J on this issue and didn't find a trace. Personally, I think someone is just making stuff up. Can anyone give me more information?

Rossi · #2 (**permalink**) 08-10-2008, 04:21 PM

yeah the fact is there made on a different production line using a different technique allow the base material is the same the lens materials are different so people wouldn't stand a chance in a lawsuit

eyecaramba · #3 (**permalink**) 08-12-2008, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rossi

yeah the fact is there made on a different production line using a different technique allow the base material is the same the lens materials are different so people wouldn't stand a chance in a lawsuit

Thank you, Rossi. I get a little tired of people screaming "scam!" all over the place before they get their facts straight. Thank you for doing your homework. Looks like Johnson & Johnson isn't scamming anybody.

I love Lens 101.

CaptainKremen · #4 (**permalink**) 10-08-2009, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eyecaramba

Thank you, Rossi. I get a little tired of people screaming "scam!" all over the place before they get their facts straight. Thank you for doing your homework. Looks like Johnson & Johnson isn't scamming anybody.

I love Lens 101.

I'm with you, eyecaramba. It's incredible how often I get an email intended to either anger me or scare me, but after five minutes of research, I usually reply with some variation of "It's all right, folks. Nothing to see here."

lurker2010 · #5 (**permalink**) 01-25-2010, 01:40 PM

Both Vistakon (J&J) and B&L were sued in the mid 90s. They were selling the same lens at different prices,different quantities with different care instructions. Yes, at one time, the regular Accuvue and One Day Accuvue was the identical lens. At one time B&L was selling the same lense for different wearing periods.

I think at least one mfg started selling their vial (one year) lens in a 4 pack for quarterly replacement.

I'll give you one google hit on Accuvue
http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/07-27-2001/0001543195&EDATE=#

and one on B&L
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR969/MR969.ch5.pdf

Dragonslayer · #6 (**permalink**) 01-25-2010, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lurker2010

Both Vistakon (J&J) and B&L were sued in the mid 90s. They were selling the same lens at different prices,different quantities with different care instructions. Yes, at one time, the regular Accuvue and One Day Accuvue was the identical lens. At one time B&L was selling the same lens for different wearing periods.

I think at least one mfg started selling their vial (one year) lens in a 4 pack for quarterly replacement.

I'll give you one google hit on Accuvue
http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/07-27-2001/0001543195&EDATE=#

and one on B&L
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR969/MR969.ch5.pdf

Hi Lurker2020. Thanks for the links. The second one led to an error page, but look what I found at the first link:

Vistakon(R), a division of Johnson & Johnson Vision Care Inc., together with plaintiffs' counsel, jointly announced today that they have reached a settlement of a class action lawsuit concerning the marketing of Acuvue(R) and 1-Day Acuvue(R) soft contact lenses.
The settlement, which has been preliminarily approved by the Superior Court of
New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, grants cash, product credits, and
refunds towards eye examinations to members of the class based upon the number of boxes of Acuvue(R) contact lenses purchased by class members during the Class Period. The settlement is subject to a fairness hearing and final
approval by the Court.

Check out this part:

The Court has not ruled on either the merits of plaintiffs' claims or the defenses, and the settlement in no way implies or acknowledges any wrongdoing by Johnson & Johnson or Vistakon. "This was a complex case with difficult
issues," said plaintiffs' counsel Peter L. Masnik. "We are pleased that the
parties were able to negotiate a significant resolution that provides valuable
benefits to the class members and promotes eye health by payment towards eye
examinations."

I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that neither Jonson & Jonson nor Vistakon were found guilty of any wrong doing. The court was not presented with sufficient evidence to prove that the accusations against these companies--which included that "Vistakon's marketing of Acuvue(R) and 1-Day Acuvue(R) lenses created the misleading impression among consumers that the less expensive 1-Day Acuvue(R) lens was different from the Acuvue(R) lens and should not be used for the same wear schedule as the Acuvue(R) lens, when in fact both lenses are medically suitable for the same wear schedules"--was true.

Just because someone was sued, doesn't mean they were guilty.

lurker2010 · #7 (**permalink**) 01-25-2010, 02:31 PM

Play with the second link, or do your own google search. B&L was taking the exact same lens off the production line and putting it in different packaging. The same lens was being sold with different replacement schedules and different quantities.

The claim was the one day Accuvue and regular Accuvue were essentially the same lens. J&J decided to settle rather then argue differences in power or diameter had anything to do with how many days a lens could be worn. At that time the one day Accvue could be worn for as many days as the regular Accuvue, if the same care was used.

I'm not going to take the time to do further searches. My memory is J&J wanted to release their one day lens before they had the mfg in place to produce a different lens. They essentially used the regular Accuvue so they could get it to market quicker.

This old news. My point is the previous posters didn't go back far enough when they did their search.

The purpose of my post isn't to "find" the companies guilty (or innocent) but rather to document the fact that B&L sold the same lens at different price points with different replacement suggestions. Also to confirm J&J sold what was essentially the same lens as One Day Accuvue and regular Accuvue.

The companies didn't deny those claims. They said they didn't do anything wrong.

The OP asked if there was any legal action taken against J&J. Two posters incorrectly stated there was no such action. Regardless of any legal decision,at that time the one day accuvue could be worn for the same number of days as the regular accuvue.

Stylinbabe · #8 (**permalink**) 01-25-2010, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lurker2010

The OP asked if there was any legal action taken against J&J. Two posters incorrectly stated there was no such action.

I looked back on this thread, lurker, and I didn't see where anyone said that no legal action was being taken against J & J. Captain Kremen started the thread saying that he had heard rumors of a lawsuit, but couldn't find any evidence of said lawsuit. He then went on to ask if anyone else had more information. There's a difference between saying "There's nothing" and saying "I couldn't find anything."

Did I miss something?

lurker2010 · #9 (**permalink**) 01-25-2010, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stylinbabe

I looked back on this thread, lurker, and I didn't see where anyone said that no legal action was being taken against J & J. Captain Kremen started the thread saying that he had heard rumors of a lawsuit, but couldn't find any evidence of said lawsuit. He then went on to ask if anyone else had more information. There's a difference between saying "There's nothing" and saying "I couldn't find anything."

Did I miss something?

It was pretty easy to find with google.

You want quotes with comments?

Quote:

Personally, I think someone is just making stuff up.

No, just because you can't find it doesn't mean someone is making it up.

Quote:

yeah the fact is there made on a different production line using a different technique allow the base material is the same the lens materials are different so people wouldn't stand a chance in a lawsuit

If it was that simple J&J wouldn't of settled. Just because the base curve and powers are different doesn't mean the materials are different.

Quote:

before they get their facts straight. Thank you for doing your homework.

No the poster quoted didn't do his homework and is the one who didn't get his facts straight.

ReTina · #10 (**permalink**) 08-26-2010, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lurker2010

B&L was taking the exact same lens off the production line and putting it in different packaging. The same lens was being sold with different replacement schedules and different quantities.

An interesting thread to me sure.

I read the article and it said "The Court has not ruled on either the merits of plaintiffs' claims or the defenses, and the settlement in no way implies or acknowledges any wrongdoing by Johnson & Johnson or Vistakon."

Whatever it was that J & J and Vistakon was doing, evidently the Court did not consider it "wrongdoing." Sure, J&J paid up, but in the court records, no wrong was done; neither Vistakon nor Johnson and Johnson were found guilty. To me, that's the bottom line. They were taken to a judge that was (hopefully) impartial and the fact is, the judge did not give a "guilty" verdict.

Case closed? Any more questions or comments?

lurker2010 · #11 (**permalink**) 08-26-2010, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReTina

An interesting thread to me sure.

I read the article and it said "The Court has not ruled on either the merits of plaintiffs' claims or the defenses, and the settlement in no way implies or acknowledges any wrongdoing by Johnson & Johnson or Vistakon."

Whatever it was that J & J and Vistakon was doing, evidently the Court did not consider it "wrongdoing." Sure, J&J paid up, but in the court records, no wrong was done; neither Vistakon nor Johnson and Johnson were found guilty. To me, that's the bottom line. They were taken to a judge that was (hopefully) impartial and the fact is, the judge did not give a "guilty" verdict.

Case closed? Any more questions or comments?

The question was if (at least some) lens companies sell the exact same lens, at different prices, with different wearing schedules.

The answer is yes. I provided information regarding a lawsuit. There is at least one current lens that's marketed with different wearing schedules and different prices.

I could rewrite your post. Everyplace you say the judge did not give a "guilty verdict" change it to say the judge did not give a not-guilty verdict. The fact is the judge didn't make a ruling.

The question in this thread isn't if what the companies did is illegal but rather confirming the fact that it was done.

Uhura · #12 (**permalink**) 08-26-2010, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lurker2010

The question was if (at least some) lens companies sell the exact same lens, at different prices, with different wearing schedules.

The answer is yes. I provided information regarding a lawsuit. There is at least one current lens that's marketed with different wearing schedules and different prices.

I could rewrite your post. Everyplace you say the judge did not give a "guilty verdict" change it to say the judge did not give a not-guilty verdict. The fact is the judge didn't make a ruling.

The question in this thread isn't if what the companies did is illegal but rather confirming the fact that it was done.

Hi everybody.

I think it would be helpful if someone were to quote an outside source that states clearly that Johnson & Johnson/Vistakon were definitely selling monthly contact lenses in boxes that said "daily disposables" from this date to that date. Can anyone come up with that information? Just saying that the contact lens companies were sued, found not guilty and then made a financial settlement doesn't seem to be helping to clear the matter.

lurker2010 · #13 (**permalink**) 08-26-2010, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uhura

Hi everybody.

I think it would be helpful if someone were to quote an outside source that states clearly that Johnson & Johnson/Vistakon were definitely selling monthly contact lenses in boxes that said "daily disposables" from this date to that date. Can anyone come up with that information? Just saying that the contact lens companies were sued, found not guilty and then made a financial settlement doesn't seem to be helping to clear the matter.

I'll let you do the goggling. The facts weren't in dispute, the question was if the lens manufacturers did anything wrong.

There was a magazine article where the reporter toured the B&L plant. He witnessed lenses coming off the line and going into different boxes.

eyecaramba · #14 (**permalink**) 09-01-2010, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lurker2010

I'll let you do the goggling.

That doesn't seem to have helped thus far, lurker.

Stylinbabe · #15 (**permalink**) 09-15-2010, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lurker2010

The question was if (at least some) lens companies sell the exact same lens, at different prices, with different wearing schedules.

The answer is yes. I provided information regarding a lawsuit. There is at least one current lens that's marketed with different wearing schedules and different prices.

I could rewrite your post. Everyplace you say the judge did not give a "guilty verdict" change it to say the judge did not give a not-guilty verdict. The fact is the judge didn't make a ruling.

I don't know where you're from, lurker2010. We get contributors for all around the world at Lens 101, but here in the United States, a person (or a company) is considered to be innocent until proven guilty. So in my mind "not proven guilty" is--for all intents and purposes--"innocent."

Let's make it simpler:

If Billy accuses Sally of stealing his pencil box, if no evidence is found that Sally went to his desk and took the pencil box to her own desk, she is considered innocent of the theft. If Billy insists that Sally stole it, but can't prove it, she is still innocent. Even if Sally doesn't have a good explanation as to how Billy's pencil box got in her desk, that still doesn't mean she's guilty.

No one can prove that J & J is switching contact lenses around, but J & J's explanation of the evidence isn't very good either, apparently, as seen in the statement "The Court has not ruled on either the merits of plaintiffs' claims or the defenses . . . " (Emphasis mine.)

Maybe the case will be re-opened and someone will come up with the evidence that Johnson and Johnson is indeed guilty of "taking the exact same lens off the production line and putting it in different packaging" but until such proof comes to light, everything else is just hearsay.

lurker2010 · #16 (**permalink**) 09-15-2010, 10:20 PM

I'm from the United States. Your post makes absolutely no sense. You didn't add any facts to this thread. Stealing a pencil box has nothing to do with contact lens labeling. We're not taking about criminal behavior.

I'll make it very simple. B&L sold the identical lenses under different brand names, different pricing and different wearing schedules. A magazine writer witnessed lenses coming off the production line and going into different packaging. B&L didn't dispute the facts. B&L said they didn't do anything wrong. B&L settled for 68 million dollars.

J&J was accused of selling interchangeable lenses as acuvue and as 1 day Acuvue. At the time the lenses were made of the same material.

There was no dispute that the B&L lenses were identical or that the J&J lenses were substantially the same (with regards to how long the lenses could be worn).

The dispute was over the legality of the practices.

Posters in this thread first denied any lawsuit was filed and now try to deny facts that weren't disputed.

The fact is some companies market the identical (or substantially identical) lens under different names with different replacement schedules.

Posters in this thread are posting false information and offering false analogies. I'm offering facts and links.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR969/MR969.ch5.pdf

I'm not using terms like innocent or guilty. The companies settled. It was never established if what B&L did was fraudulent, criminal etc. Rather the companies settled for what they did--without admitting they were wrong.

The suits are more then 10 years old. I'm not suggesting those companies lenses are currently the same.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stylinbabe

I don't know where you're from, lurker2010. We get contributors for all around the world at Lens 101, but here in the United States, a person (or a company) is considered to be innocent until proven guilty. So in my mind "not proven guilty" is--for all intents and purposes--"innocent."

Let's make it simpler:

If Billy accuses Sally of stealing his pencil box, if no evidence is found that Sally went to his desk and took the pencil box to her own desk, she is considered innocent of the theft. If Billy insists that Sally stole it, but can't prove it, she is still innocent. Even if Sally doesn't have a good explanation as to how Billy's pencil box got in her desk, that still doesn't mean she's guilty.

No one can prove that J & J is switching contact lenses around, but J & J's explanation of the evidence isn't very good either, apparently, as seen in the statement "The Court has not ruled on either the merits of plaintiffs' claims or the defenses . . . " (Emphasis mine.)

Maybe the case will be re-opened and someone will come up with the evidence that Johnson and Johnson is indeed guilty of "taking the exact same lens off the production line and putting it in different packaging" but until such proof comes to light, everything else is just hearsay.

Knotlob · #17 (**permalink**) 09-16-2010, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lurker2010

I'm from the United States. Your post makes absolutely no sense. You didn't add any facts to this thread. Stealing a pencil box has nothing to do with contact lens labeling. We're not taking about criminal behavior.

I'll make it very simple. B&L sold the identical lenses under different brand names, different pricing and different wearing schedules. A magazine writer witnessed lenses coming off the production line and going into different packaging. B&L didn't dispute the facts. B&L said they didn't do anything wrong. B&L settled for 68 million dollars.

J&J was accused of selling interchangeable lenses as acuvue and as 1 day Acuvue. At the time the lenses were made of the same material.

There was no dispute that the B&L lenses were identical or that the J&J lenses were substantially the same (with regards to how long the lenses could be worn).

The dispute was over the legality of the practices.

Posters in this thread first denied any lawsuit was filed and now try to deny facts that weren't disputed.

The fact is some companies market the identical (or substantially identical) lens under different names with different replacement schedules.

Posters in this thread are posting false information and offering false analogies. I'm offering facts and links.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR969/MR969.ch5.pdf

I'm not using terms like innocent or guilty. The companies settled. It was never established if what B&L did was fraudulent, criminal etc. Rather the companies settled for what they did--without admitting they were wrong.

The suits are more then 10 years old. I'm not suggesting those companies lenses are currently the same.

Good post lurker2010.

Thanks for the link. It's quite a long article, but gives a good insight to the case details. Good to have the facts.

knotlob

Bondjamesbond · #18 (**permalink**) 09-16-2010, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lurker2010

I'm from the United States. Your post makes absolutely no sense. You didn't add any facts to this thread. Stealing a pencil box has nothing to do with contact lens labeling. We're not taking about criminal behavior.

I'll make it very simple. B&L sold the identical lenses under different brand names, different pricing and different wearing schedules. A magazine writer witnessed lenses coming off the production line and going into different packaging. B&L didn't dispute the facts. B&L said they didn't do anything wrong. B&L settled for 68 million dollars.

J&J was accused of selling interchangeable lenses as acuvue and as 1 day Acuvue. At the time the lenses were made of the same material.

There was no dispute that the B&L lenses were identical or that the J&J lenses were substantially the same (with regards to how long the lenses could be worn).

The dispute was over the legality of the practices.

Posters in this thread first denied any lawsuit was filed and now try to deny facts that weren't disputed.

The fact is some companies market the identical (or substantially identical) lens under different names with different replacement schedules.

Posters in this thread are posting false information and offering false analogies. I'm offering facts and links.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR969/MR969.ch5.pdf

I'm not using terms like innocent or guilty. The companies settled. It was never established if what B&L did was fraudulent, criminal etc. Rather the companies settled for what they did--without admitting they were wrong.

The suits are more then 10 years old. I'm not suggesting those companies lenses are currently the same.

Do you have a link to an article that's not a .pdf file? I don't know why, but I can't read those on my computer and I would imagine that there are others who are experiencing the same problem. They may not have Adobe Acrobat installed on their computer and don't want it. So do you have anything that we can read without downloading additional software?

Knotlob · #19 (**permalink**) 09-16-2010, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bondjamesbond

Do you have a link to an article that's not a .pdf file? I don't know why, but I can't read those on my computer and I would imagine that there are others who are experiencing the same problem. They may not have Adobe Acrobat installed on their computer and don't want it. So do you have anything that we can read without downloading additional software?

Sorry, but Adobe .pdf files are the Internet standard for documents. You need the Adobe .pdf document file reader installed on your PC to read this file. It can be downloaded for free from most of the websites that host the .pdf files.

This particular document is quite long so it is impractical to cut and paste it.

knotlob

Xwing · #20 (**permalink**) 09-16-2010, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knotlob

Sorry, but Adobe .pdf files are the Internet standard for documents. You need the Adobe .pdf document file reader installed on your PC to read this file. It can be downloaded for free from most of the websites that host the .pdf files.

This particular document is quite long so it is impractical to cut and paste it.

knotlob

Hmmm . . . and it's nowhere else on the `net?

I'm currently borrowing this computer and I don't want to download stuff without permission. I guess the next best thing would be for someone to quote some of the more relevant bits. Once some of those are here, I bet there are some really clever computer geeks on this forum could find a way for the rest of us to get this important information.

Knotlob · #21 (**permalink**) 09-16-2010, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xwing

Hmmm . . . and it's nowhere else on the `net?

I'm currently borrowing this computer and I don't want to download stuff without permission. I guess the next best thing would be for someone to quote some of the more relevant bits. Once some of those are here, I bet there are some really clever computer geeks on this forum could find a way for the rest of us to get this important information.

Sorry, but this document only appears to be in .pdf format. I Googled it and found this blog which has several HTML hyperlinks, including the one above (in .pdf format), but of course there will be those on the forum who will regard a blog as as much the same as a tabloid newspaper in accuracy.

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=207583

Maybe you can find something of interest there, but even Smart phones these days have Adobe .pdf conversions on them.

knotlob

Unclelar · #22 (**permalink**) 09-16-2010, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knotlob

Sorry, but this document only appears to be in .pdf format. I Googled it and found this blog which has several HTML hyperlinks, including the one above (in .pdf format), but of course there will be those on the forum who will regard a blog as as much the same as a tabloid newspaper in accuracy.

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=207583

Maybe you can find something of interest there, but even Smart phones these days have Adobe .pdf conversions on them.

knotlob

Thank you so much for the URL, knotlob.

Here's a "relevant bit," itself quoted from consumerlawpage.com.

A court-approved settlement of a consumer class action settlement
against Bausch & Lomb was announced on August 1, 1996 . . .
Many wearers will receive from $25 to $50 in cash and $25 to $50 in
coupons under the settlement as a result of a class-action filed in
May 1994 which alleged that the company sold the same product under
different brand names at widely varying prices and engaged in a
fraudulent marketing scheme in order to gain market share in the
disposal lens market. The result was that some consumers paid much
more because they believed they were getting different lenses.

Bausch & Lomb denies any wrongdoing in its re-labeling program but
agreed to pay up to $34 million in cash payments to consumers and in
addition provide the same amount in free products, including contact
lenses, sunglasses and skin-care items.

Competition from Johnson & Johnson led Bausch & Lomb to relabel its
lenses to compete with Accuview disposable lenses which have long held
a premier share of the contact lens market. At the time, Bausch & Lomb
was selling a long wear lens under the name of Optima, which
wholesaled to optometrists for approximately $25. In order to enter
the disposable market Bausch & Lomb simply repackaged its Optima lens
and renamed it the Medalist for intermediate wear and as the Sequence
for disposable use.

These new and identical products were represented to be different, but
the only true difference was the name on the package and the price
charged."

So Bausch and Lomb said that they didn't do anything wrong, but they paid up anyway. Is that like apologizing to your sister because your Mom told you to, even though you really didn't call her a smelly pig face?

Or is it more like the kid I saw on TV with chocolate all over his face clearly saying that he did not have any chocolate?

They said that B & L did the relabeling to compete against Johnson & Johnson. Wasn't J & J accused of the same kind of thing?

I also noticed something else. 1996 was a long time ago, folks. I've never even heard of "Medalist" contact lenses. So can we be pretty sure than the daily lenses we buy from Johnson and Johnson today are made of different stuff than their "intermediate" lenses?

Knotlob · #23 (**permalink**) 09-16-2010, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unclelar

Thank you so much for the URL, knotlob.

Here's a "relevant bit," itself quoted from consumerlawpage.com.

A court-approved settlement of a consumer class action settlement
against Bausch & Lomb was announced on August 1, 1996 . . .
Many wearers will receive from $25 to $50 in cash and $25 to $50 in
coupons under the settlement as a result of a class-action filed in
May 1994 which alleged that the company sold the same product under
different brand names at widely varying prices and engaged in a
fraudulent marketing scheme in order to gain market share in the
disposal lens market. The result was that some consumers paid much
more because they believed they were getting different lenses.

Bausch & Lomb denies any wrongdoing in its re-labeling program but
agreed to pay up to $34 million in cash payments to consumers and in
addition provide the same amount in free products, including contact
lenses, sunglasses and skin-care items.

Competition from Johnson & Johnson led Bausch & Lomb to relabel its
lenses to compete with Accuview disposable lenses which have long held
a premier share of the contact lens market. At the time, Bausch & Lomb
was selling a long wear lens under the name of Optima, which
wholesaled to optometrists for approximately $25. In order to enter
the disposable market Bausch & Lomb simply repackaged its Optima lens
and renamed it the Medalist for intermediate wear and as the Sequence
for disposable use.

These new and identical products were represented to be different, but
the only true difference was the name on the package and the price
charged."

So Bausch and Lomb said that they didn't do anything wrong, but they paid up anyway. Is that like apologizing to your sister because your Mom told you to, even though you really didn't call her a smelly pig face?

Or is it more like the kid I saw on TV with chocolate all over his face clearly saying that he did not have any chocolate?

They said that B & L did the relabeling to compete against Johnson & Johnson. Wasn't J & J accused of the same kind of thing?

I also noticed something else. 1996 was a long time ago, folks. I've never even heard of "Medalist" contact lenses. So can we be pretty sure than the daily lenses we buy from Johnson and Johnson today are made of different stuff than their "intermediate" lenses?

I very much doubt that similar practices to those exposed in this article, are not still occurring. Maybe they are a bit better at covering their tracks.

You just need to look at the rebranding practices that CooperVision allow in respect of some of their lenses, to see that the Seller comes first, not the contact lens wearer.

knotlob

lurker2010 · #24 (**permalink**) 09-16-2010, 07:52 PM

Buy a case of beer and you'll be paying a lot less, per can, then if you just buy a single can.

The lens manufacturers maintain they were doing nothing more then giving daily wearers a quantity discount. Pick an extreme case. Assume a daily lens is the same as a vial (replace annually lens). IT'S NOT. A lens manufacturer couldn't stay in business, pay their overhead, if patients could pay them the price of one pair of daily lenses once a year. There is some truth to that position.

Most of the links expired and many of the older articles are not available online. My memory is what got the lens companies in trouble was their claim that the lenses were different. Claiming the lenses that were marketed for daily or two weeks couldn't be used for longer. The issue was the exact same lens was approved by the FDA for longer use. The lens companies were (I'll be fair and say presumed guilty) of deceptive/fraudulent marketing. Lenses weren't different and the lenses could be worn for longer.

The short term work around was to change the wording. Some lenses just tell you to follow the wear and cleaning procedures that is given to the patient by your eye professional. The lens company didn't specifically state how often you should replace the lens. The term "daily" lens referred to how the lens was priced and not how often you should discard it. Lawyers at work.

J&J now submits a lens to the FDA for only daily use. That doesn't mean some of the lenses can't be worn for more then a day, assuming proper cleaning and disinfecting. It does mean a practitioner who suggests wearing them longer is suggesting something that hasn't been approved by the FDA.

Other lens companies get FDA approval for different wear schedules for the same lens. They also file the same lens under different brand names.

The lens companies learned how to word their instructions and file their products with the FDA to avoid lawsuits. It doesn't mean their practices have significantly changed.

Knotlob and I both reviewed the FDA website. There are companies that market the identical lens under different brand names with different wear schedules.

I'm not going to list the lenses. Patients need to consult their eye professional.

I have the opposite opinion.. I think some (many?) patients can't get good results wearing 2 week lenses for 14 days (not overnight) or getting 90 days out of quarterly lenses. No rub cleaning doesn't really work. Patients may not use protein cleaners as often as is needed.

Orionebula · #25 (**permalink**) 09-17-2010, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lurker2010

Buy a case of beer and you'll be paying a lot less, per can, then if you just buy a single can.

The lens manufacturers maintain they were doing nothing more then giving daily wearers a quantity discount. Pick an extreme case. Assume a daily lens is the same as a vial (replace annually lens). IT'S NOT. A lens manufacturer couldn't stay in business, pay their overhead, if patients could pay them the price of one pair of daily lenses once a year. There is some truth to that position.

Most of the links expired and many of the older articles are not available online. My memory is what got the lens companies in trouble was their claim that the lenses were different. Claiming the lenses that were marketed for daily or two weeks couldn't be used for longer. The issue was the exact same lens was approved by the FDA for longer use. The lens companies were (I'll be fair and say presumed guilty) of deceptive/fraudulent marketing. Lenses weren't different and the lenses could be worn for longer.

The short term work around was to change the wording. Some lenses just tell you to follow the wear and cleaning procedures that is given to the patient by your eye professional. The lens company didn't specifically state how often you should replace the lens. The term "daily" lens referred to how the lens was priced and not how often you should discard it. Lawyers at work.

J&J now submits a lens to the FDA for only daily use. That doesn't mean some of the lenses can't be worn for more then a day, assuming proper cleaning and disinfecting. It does mean a practitioner who suggests wearing them longer is suggesting something that hasn't been approved by the FDA.

Other lens companies get FDA approval for different wear schedules for the same lens. They also file the same lens under different brand names.

The lens companies learned how to word their instructions and file their products with the FDA to avoid lawsuits. It doesn't mean their practices have significantly changed.

Knotlob and I both reviewed the FDA website. There are companies that market the identical lens under different brand names with different wear schedules.

I'm not going to list the lenses. Patients need to consult their eye professional.

I have the opposite opinion.. I think some (many?) patients can't get good results wearing 2 week lenses for 14 days (not overnight) or getting 90 days out of quarterly lenses. No rub cleaning doesn't really work. Patients may not use protein cleaners as often as is needed.

Thank you for patiently explaining this issue, Lurker. I'm still a little dazed and confused by the whole thing, but it's a bit clearer now that members like yourself and Knotlob calmly explained without getting emotional.

lurker2010 · #26 (**permalink**) 09-17-2010, 10:55 AM

Lenses designed for frequent replacement (daily and 14 days) don't generally hold up when cleaned by rubbing. "No-rub" solutions do a poor job cleaning lenses.

For many people lenses cleaned by "no-rub" solutions are in pretty bad shape after 7 days. Some people wear daily lenses because they can't even get 7 days use out of 14 day lenses and the lenses aren't even in good shape after 2-3 days.

Even if the 1 day and 14 days are identical, (some mfg are identical/some aren't) some people wear daily lenses to avoid the issues of no-rub cleaning. No matter how well I rubbed and used enzymes I only got around 60 days out of 90 day lens and maybe 7 days out of a 14 day lens.

A 14 day lens doesn't self-destruct after it's been cleaned 13 times. Some people can wear it for more days and some people fewer days.

The daily lens is marketed to people who can't clean a modern lens, protein deposits, or to people who don't want the hassle of cleaning a lens.

In other words one reason for daily lenses is the fact that, at least for some people, a 14 day lens is no good. A person who was prescribed a daily lens, because cleaning doesn't work well, is making a mistake stretching a daily lens for a week or more.

Wendy94 · #27 (**permalink**) 09-17-2010, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lurker2010

Lenses designed for frequent replacement (daily and 14 days) don't generally hold up when cleaned by rubbing. "No-rub" solutions do a poor job cleaning lenses.

For many people lenses cleaned by "no-rub" solutions are in pretty bad shape after 7 days. Some people wear daily lenses because they can't even get 7 days use out of 14 day lenses and the lenses aren't even in good shape after 2-3 days.

Even if the 1 day and 14 days are identical, (some mfg are identical/some aren't) some people wear daily lenses to avoid the issues of no-rub cleaning. No matter how well I rubbed and used enzymes I only got around 60 days out of 90 day lens and maybe 7 days out of a 14 day lens.

A 14 day lens doesn't self-destruct after it's been cleaned 13 times. Some people can wear it for more days and some people fewer days.

The daily lens is marketed to people who can't clean a modern lens, protein deposits, or to people who don't want the hassle of cleaning a lens.

In other words one reason for daily lenses is the fact that, at least for some people, a 14 day lens is no good. A person who was prescribed a daily lens, because cleaning doesn't work well, is making a mistake stretching a daily lens for a week or more.

Wow. What an informative post. Thank you so much, Lurker2010.

You mentioned a "90 day lens." I've never heard of that before. Do the big companies like Johnson & Johnson make 90 day lenses?

Bondjamesbond · #28 (**permalink**) 09-20-2010, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lurker2010

. . . for some people, a 14 day lens is no good. A person who was prescribed a daily lens, because cleaning doesn't work well, is making a mistake stretching a daily lens for a week or more.

Thanks for that summary, lurker. I guess if you want to clean your contacts and wear them again, then just don't buy daily lenses, right? The extended wear lenses are cheaper anyway, aren't they? If that's the case, then cleaning daily disposable lenses and wearing them again doesn't make any sense at all.

Knotlob · #29 (**permalink**) 09-20-2010, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bondjamesbond

Thanks for that summary, lurker. I guess if you want to clean your contacts and wear them again, then just don't buy daily lenses, right? The extended wear lenses are cheaper anyway, aren't they? If that's the case, then cleaning daily disposable lenses and wearing them again doesn't make any sense at all.

Daily lenses are cheaper/lens than a weekly/biweekly/monthly or vial lens. It would depend on how many times you were able to wear the Daily Lens before it failed and that would affect the economics. If you follow the manufacturer's recommendations, than Daily Disposable will probably cost twice as much as a Monthly Disposable lens including it's cleaning solutions.

But remember that only 1 Day Acuvue TruEye is currently available as a Silicone Hydrogel Daily lens (and in the US, the Dk value/oxygen permeability is much less than the European version of that lens).

So for better oxygen permeability, you would be better off using biweekly or monthly silicone hydrogel lenses. But as always discuss your contact lens wearing regime with your own eye care professional.

knotlob

Xwing · #30 (**permalink**) 09-20-2010, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bondjamesbond

The extended wear lenses are cheaper anyway, aren't they? If that's the case, then cleaning daily disposable lenses and wearing them again doesn't make any sense at all.

I went to Lens.com and looked at the first brand of daily disposables listed, which was 1-Day Acuvue, and they sell on Lens.com for $22.95 per 30 lens box. For monthly I used the same highly scientific method (First one listed on the page.) and found Optima 38/SP lenses, which sell for 39.95 per box, which contains two lenses. So it looks like the monthly lenses are actually a bit more expensive than the dailies, Mister Bond.

Knotlob · #31 (**permalink**) 09-20-2010, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xwing

I went to Lens.com and looked at the first brand of daily disposables listed, which was 1-Day Acuvue, and they sell on Lens.com for $22.95 per 30 lens box. For monthly I used the same highly scientific method (First one listed on the page.) and found Optima 38/SP lenses, which sell for 39.95 per box, which contains two lenses. So it looks like the monthly lenses are actually a bit more expensive than the dailies, Mister Bond.

Your right Xwing, by the time you factor in Disinfecting/Cleaning solutions the Daily lenses would be slightly cheaper than the Optima SP monthlies and the 1-Day Acuvue lenses are more air permeable also.

knotlob

Xwing · #32 (**permalink**) 09-20-2010, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knotlob

Your right Xwing, by the time you factor in Disinfecting/Cleaning solutions the Daily lenses would be slightly cheaper than the Optima SP monthlies and the 1-Day Acuvue lenses are more air permeable also.

knotlob

So that means that people will be tempted to buy the "cheap" daily lenses and wear them for a couple of days to stretch their dollars/pounds/francs/marks/rupees as much as possible, and that's bad, isn't it?

Zoey · #33 (**permalink**) 09-20-2010, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xwing

So that means that people will be tempted to buy the "cheap" daily lenses and wear them for a couple of days to stretch their dollars/pounds/francs/marks/rupees as much as possible, and that's bad, isn't it?

Wearing daily disposables for more than one day doesn't sound very good to me, (Does anybody else see the words "daily" and "disposable" in there?) but I want to see how knotlob will answer.

Knotlob · #34 (**permalink**) 09-20-2010, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zoey

Wearing daily disposables for more than one day doesn't sound very good to me, (Does anybody else see the words "daily" and "disposable" in there?) but I want to see how knotlob will answer.

Xwing and Zoey

Wearing the Daily lenses for more than one day is certainly bad for the Contact Lens companies' profits

.

It is well known, by the contact lens companies, that many wearers do 'stretch out' the wearing days for lenses (probably most so for the biweekly and monthly lenses).

People who are prescribed Daily Disposables may have been prescribed them for a sound reason. e.g. they won't, or are incapable of looking after them with cleaning and disinfecting solutions (typically younger children), or they are prone to loosing lenses, travel frequently, or are prone to pollen or other environmental allergies where a daily disposable would be safer. So in this case, it would be foolish to wear the lenses more than one day.

If I was going to wear the lenses longer than the 'official' lifetime recommended by the manufacturers, I would probably do it with Monthly lenses and get the benefit of a silicone hydrogel lens. Most (but not all) daily lenses will probably tear after a couple of days and most don't offer the benefits of silicone hydrogel.

As regarding wearing Monthly lenses, etc. for say longer than a month, but only wearing them at the weekends, the manufacturers naturally say you should throw the lenses away after a month, even if worn only 4-8 times, but they consistently fail to give a bomb proof valid reason for this. So the jury is out a bit on this for Monthly lenses, but as always, you should be guided by your eye care professional re lens wear (no harm in discussing the issue with them and testing their arguments).

I don't see the point in wearing Daily Lenses for more than one day, even if they are disinfected over night. The savings are likely to be rather minimal.

knotlob

ElaineKramer · #35 (**permalink**) 09-21-2010, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knotlob

Xwing and Zoey

Wearing the Daily lenses for more than one day is certainly bad for the Contact Lens companies' profits

.

It is well known, by the contact lens companies, that many wearers do 'stretch out' the wearing days for lenses (probably most so for the biweekly and monthly lenses).

People who are prescribed Daily Disposables may have been prescribed them for a sound reason. e.g. they won't, or are incapable of looking after them with cleaning and disinfecting solutions (typically younger children), or they are prone to loosing lenses, travel frequently, or are prone to pollen or other environmental allergies where a daily disposable would be safer. So in this case, it would be foolish to wear the lenses more than one day.

If I was going to wear the lenses longer than the 'official' lifetime recommended by the manufacturers, I would probably do it with Monthly lenses and get the benefit of a silicone hydrogel lens. Most (but not all) daily lenses will probably tear after a couple of days and most don't offer the benefits of silicone hydrogel.

As regarding wearing Monthly lenses, etc. for say longer than a month, but only wearing them at the weekends, the manufacturers naturally say you should throw the lenses away after a month, even if worn only 4-8 times, but they consistently fail to give a bomb proof valid reason for this. So the jury is out a bit on this for Monthly lenses, but as always, you should be guided by your eye care professional re lens wear (no harm in discussing the issue with them and testing their arguments).

I don't see the point in wearing Daily Lenses for more than one day, even if they are disinfected over night. The savings are likely to be rather minimal.

knotlob

Thanks for that thoughtful analysis, Knotlob. I've been rather disturbed by the number of posts I've been reading lately that say that you can safely wear daily disposable contact lenses for days and days. I just hope that people will listen to those of us who disagree.

Orionebula · #36 (**permalink**) 09-21-2010, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragonslayer

Hi Lurker2020. Thanks for the links. The second one led to an error page, but look what I found at the first link:

Vistakon(R), a division of Johnson & Johnson Vision Care Inc., together with plaintiffs' counsel, jointly announced today that they have reached a settlement of a class action lawsuit concerning the marketing of Acuvue(R) and 1-Day Acuvue(R) soft contact lenses.
The settlement, which has been preliminarily approved by the Superior Court of
New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, grants cash, product credits, and
refunds towards eye examinations to members of the class based upon the number of boxes of Acuvue(R) contact lenses purchased by class members during the Class Period. The settlement is subject to a fairness hearing and final
approval by the Court.

Check out this part:

The Court has not ruled on either the merits of plaintiffs' claims or the defenses, and the settlement in no way implies or acknowledges any wrongdoing by Johnson & Johnson or Vistakon. "This was a complex case with difficult
issues," said plaintiffs' counsel Peter L. Masnik. "We are pleased that the
parties were able to negotiate a significant resolution that provides valuable
benefits to the class members and promotes eye health by payment towards eye
examinations."

I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that neither Jonson & Jonson nor Vistakon were found guilty of any wrong doing. The court was not presented with sufficient evidence to prove that the accusations against these companies--which included that "Vistakon's marketing of Acuvue(R) and 1-Day Acuvue(R) lenses created the misleading impression among consumers that the less expensive 1-Day Acuvue(R) lens was different from the Acuvue(R) lens and should not be used for the same wear schedule as the Acuvue(R) lens, when in fact both lenses are medically suitable for the same wear schedules"--was true.

Just because someone was sued, doesn't mean they were guilty.

That's a good point, Dragonslayer. If you hear a rumor that Vistakon was taken to court, don't just assume that they were found guilty.

Knotlob · #37 (**permalink**) 09-21-2010, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orionebula

That's a good point, Dragonslayer. If you hear a rumor that Vistakon was taken to court, don't just assume that they were found guilty.

I think Johnson & Johnson settled out of court. They could have gone to court but that would be expensive for either party and the outcome was with many court cases uncertain.

You have to draw your own conclusions as to whether what Johnson & Johnson was doing was ethically or morally correct.

knotlob

Metsman · #38 (**permalink**) 09-21-2010, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knotlob

I think Johnson & Johnson settled out of court. They could have gone to court but that would be expensive for either party and the outcome was with many court cases uncertain.

You have to draw your own conclusions as to whether what Johnson & Johnson was doing was ethically or morally correct.

knotlob

I think someone said something earlier in this thread about "innocent until proven guilty" and I think that's a good policy. It's not good to simply say "A-hah! Somebody sued them! I knew they were doing something shady!"

Maybe they were, and maybe they weren't. The fact of the matter is that in this court case, Johnson and Johnson was not found guilty, although they evidently did pay up.
As knotlob said, draw your own conclusion. Mine is that J & J settled, they were not found guilty (or innocent), case closed. J & J customers got checks, and J & J themselves avoided an even more costly and time-consuming PR nightmare. I guess everybody wins.

Metsman · #39 (**permalink**) 09-21-2010, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knotlob

I think Johnson & Johnson settled out of court. They could have gone to court but that would be expensive for either party and the outcome was with many court cases uncertain.

You have to draw your own conclusions as to whether what Johnson & Johnson was doing was ethically or morally correct.

knotlob

I think someone said something earlier in this thread about "innocent until proven guilty" and I think that's a good policy. It's not good to simply say "A-hah! Somebody sued them! I knew they were doing something shady!"

Maybe they were, and maybe they weren't. The fact of the matter is that in this court case, Johnson and Johnson was not found guilty, although they evidently did pay up.
As knotlob said, draw your own conclusion. Mine is that J & J settled, they were not found guilty (or innocent), case closed. J & J customers got checks, and J & J themselves avoided an even more costly and time-consuming PR nightmare. I guess everybody wins.

Knotlob · #40 (**permalink**) 09-21-2010, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metsman

I think someone said something earlier in this thread about "innocent until proven guilty" and I think that's a good policy. It's not good to simply say "A-hah! Somebody sued them! I knew they were doing something shady!"

Maybe they were, and maybe they weren't. The fact of the matter is that in this court case, Johnson and Johnson was not found guilty, although they evidently did pay up.
As knotlob said, draw your own conclusion. Mine is that J & J settled, they were not found guilty (or innocent), case closed. J & J customers got checks, and J & J themselves avoided an even more costly and time-consuming PR nightmare. I guess everybody wins.

I don't think J&J were found not guilty. The case wasn't tried to conclusion as they settled out of court.

In Scottish Law they have three possible verdicts:

Guilty
Not Guilty
Not Proven (which is neither guilty nor innocent).

I think if the case had been tried in Scotland, the third verdict would have applied.

knotlob

AllyCat · #41 (**permalink**) 09-21-2010, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knotlob

I don't think J&J were found not guilty. The case wasn't tried to conclusion as they settled out of court.

In Scottish Law they have three possible verdicts:

Guilty
Not Guilty
Not Proven (which is neither guilty nor innocent).

I think if the case had been tried in Scotland, the third verdict would have applied.

knotlob

In your own personal opinion, is settling an admission of guilt? I would think that if they knew they were innocent of the charges against them, they would go to trial wouldn't they?

Knotlob · #42 (**permalink**) 09-21-2010, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AllyCat

In your own personal opinion, is settling an admission of guilt? I would think that if they knew they were innocent of the charges against them, they would go to trial wouldn't they?

They didn't deny using the same product in different packaging for different market groups and charging widely different prices, so that in my book, that was charging some contact lens wearers more that they needed to have paid.

There are valid reasons why some people should wear Daily Disposables (excessive protein build up, inability to follow the required cleaning regimes, pollen allergies, travelling, frequent lens loss, etc.) and J&J probably argued that by buying Daily Disposables, these users were being given a bulk discount on their price/lens.

Nonetheless, they caused users who wore lenses on a monthly disposal regime to pay way over the odds. J&J made no effort to tell prospective wearers that the lenses were identical, despite the widely ranging prices, so that was clearly deception.

Their out of court settlement was not cheap by any standard, but court battles are expensive (only the lawyers win) and there would be greater adverse publicity with an uncertain outcome. An out of court settlement is probably quieter overall. But in my book I would consider J&J's actions morally and ethically untenable.

From what I see now, the situation has not changed very much. There is still a lot of smoke and mirrors behind many contact lens company's marketing strategies.

knotlob

AllyCat · #43 (**permalink**) 09-21-2010, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knotlob

They didn't deny using the same product in different packaging for different market groups and charging widely different prices, so that in my book, that was charging some contact lens wearers more that they needed to have paid.

There are valid reasons why some people should wear Daily Disposables (excessive protein build up, inability to follow the required cleaning regimes, pollen allergies, travelling, frequent lens loss, etc.) and J&J probably argued that by buying Daily Disposables, these users were being given a bulk discount on their price/lens.

Nonetheless, they caused users who wore lenses on a monthly disposal regime to pay way over the odds. J&J made no effort to tell prospective wearers that the lenses were identical, despite the widely ranging prices, so that was clearly deception.

Their out of court settlement was not cheap by any standard, but court battles are expensive (only the lawyers win) and there would be greater adverse publicity with an uncertain outcome. An out of court settlement is probably quieter overall. But in my book I would consider J&J's actions morally and ethically untenable.

From what I see now, the situation has not changed very much. There is still a lot of smoke and mirrors behind many contact lens company's marketing strategies.

knotlob

Thanks for answering so fast.

So are Johnson and Johnson's contact lenses packaged properly now? Can we put this thing to bed?

Knotlob · #44 (**permalink**) 09-21-2010, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AllyCat

Thanks for answering so fast.

So are Johnson and Johnson's contact lenses packaged properly now? Can we put this thing to bed?

I think they should be clever enough to avoid the same obvious mistakes as before, but I doubt any lens manufacturer is entirely transparent with their lenses (no pun intended)

.

They still refuse to give a sound scientific reason why a monthly lens (for example) cannot be worn longer than one calendar month, even if only worn at weekends. Some of their technical service people will even admit - off the record - that there is no physical reason why some lenses, not necessarily their own, cannot be worn longer. They won't put that in writing of course.

It is driven by profits and competition.

knotlob

Enah · #45 (**permalink**) 09-21-2010, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knotlob

I think they should be clever enough to avoid the same obvious mistakes as before, but I doubt any lens manufacturer is entirely transparent with their lenses (no pun intended)

.

They still refuse to give a sound scientific reason why a monthly lens (for example) cannot be worn longer than one calendar month, even if only worn at weekends.

knotlob

Hi knotlob. Interesting topic here. Here's my question. I thought I read on Lens 101 that you can wear monthly contact lenses 30 times. I thought it was more about how many times you insert the lenses, not how long you had them in. Is that right?

Knotlob · #46 (**permalink**) 09-21-2010, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enah

Hi knotlob. Interesting topic here. Here's my question. I thought I read on Lens 101 that you can wear monthly contact lenses 30 times. I thought it was more about how many times you insert the lenses, not how long you had them in. Is that right?

I asked my optician about that and probably also CooperVision for Biofinity and both replied that it is strictly one month, even if worn only a few days in the month. That doesn't make much sense to me and being an engineer I like to be told, 'why' and not 'just because that's the way it is or we said so'. Is it protein build up causing a reduction in oxygen permeability? That was what my optician suggested, but then that would surely suggest you could wear the lens for a longer time than a calendar month if only worn a few days/week. Also, if you used a very good cleaning regime, perhaps ultrasonic, the lenses would be very clean and the issue of protein build up becomes less important.

Having said that I have talked to other contact lens manufacturers and asking the same question, but not specifying a particular brand of lens. This time the representative said yes, you could wear the lens based on the number of times you wore the lens, within reason. i.e. you couldn't really expect to wear the lens for 30 months if you only wore it once/month.

The other thing which lens manufacturers do, which makes a mockery of this rigid calendar month type policy, is that the recommended wear times specified by some manufacturers varies from location to location. e.g. some manufacturers have a 2 week daily wearing period for a lens in the USA, but have the same lens listed as a 4 week daily wearing period in Europe and of course in lesser developed countries like India and China. It seems to be based on what they (the contact lens manufacturers) think the market will support.

Hence my comment about the smoke and mirrors in the previous post. They are not always being straight with their customers.

knotlob

Enah · #47 (**permalink**) 09-21-2010, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knotlob

I asked my optician about that and probably also CooperVision for Biofinity and both replied that it is strictly one month, even if worn only a few days in the month. That doesn't make much sense to me and being an engineer I like to be told, 'why' and not 'just because that's the way it is or we said so'. Is it protein build up causing a reduction in oxygen permeability? That was what my optician suggested, but then that would surely suggest you could wear the lens for a longer time than a calendar month if only worn a few days/week. Also, if you used a very good cleaning regime, perhaps ultrasonic, the lenses would be very clean and the issue of protein build up becomes less important.

knotlob

Maybe once the lens touches your eye and picks up the proteins in the tear layer, the deposits keep forming whether you wear the lenses or not?

Knotlob · #48 (**permalink**) 09-21-2010, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enah

Maybe once the lens touches your eye and picks up the proteins in the tear layer, the deposits keep forming whether you wear the lenses or not?

Unlikely. When I take the lens out of my eye, I clean/disinfect it in peroxide. Not much biological change is going to occur while stored in that!!

knotlob

HelpMeRhonda · #49 (**permalink**) 09-22-2010, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knotlob

The other thing which lens manufacturers do, which makes a mockery of this rigid calendar month type policy, is that the recommended wear times specified by some manufacturers varies from location to location. e.g. some manufacturers have a 2 week daily wearing period for a lens in the USA, but have the same lens listed as a 4 week daily wearing period in Europe and of course in lesser developed countries like India and China. It seems to be based on what they (the contact lens manufacturers) think the market will support.

knotlob

That surprises me, Knotlob. How can a company sell lenses as two week lenses in the US, and sell the very same lenses in another country as monthly lenses? Are there any kind of consumer protection laws against that sort of thing?

lurker2010 · #50 (**permalink**) 09-22-2010, 10:06 AM

Knotlob--It has to do with disinfection, long term storage and patient compliance.

I'll send you a PM with details. The details are beyond the comprehension of other posters.

Knotlob · #51 (**permalink**) 09-22-2010, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lurker2010

Knotlob--It has to do with disinfection, long term storage and patient compliance.

I'll send you a PM with details. The details are beyond the comprehension of others.

Thanks lurker2010 I will be interested in that.

knotlob

Knotlob · #52 (**permalink**) 09-22-2010, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HelpMeRhonda

That surprises me, Knotlob. How can a company sell lenses as two week lenses in the US, and sell the very same lenses in another country as monthly lenses? Are there any kind of consumer protection laws against that sort of thing?

Consumer Protection Laws tend to be Country specific or in the case of Europe EU specific. I think it is just the contact lens companies milking the market for what it's worth. Not ethically justifiable, unless you think of it as rich countries subsidising poor countries - it's stretching a bit though, as the 'lifetime' of the lens is being manipulated, not the price directly.

knotlob

Deepurple · #53 (**permalink**) 09-22-2010, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lurker2010

Knotlob--It has to do with disinfection, long term storage and patient compliance.

I'll send you a PM with details. The details are beyond the comprehension of other posters.

Did you know you said that out loud?

Thanks for putting up with us dummies. Nothing like a condescending attitude to win friends and influence people.

lurker2010 · #54 (**permalink**) 09-22-2010, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knotlob

Consumer Protection Laws tend to be Country specific or in the case of Europe EU specific. I think it is just the contact lens companies milking the market for what it's worth. Not ethically justifiable, unless you think of it as rich countries subsidising poor countries - it's stretching a bit though, as the 'lifetime' of the lens is being manipulated, not the price directly.

knotlob

It may also have to do with product liability. Liability from lawsuits may be higher in "rich countries"

Knotlob · #55 (**permalink**) 09-22-2010, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lurker2010

It may also have to do with product liability. Liability from lawsuits may be higher in "rich countries"

Yes, that's very true. The USA seems to be the centre for that, but even Southern Ireland was going that way when I lived there. So much so that the number of people suing for alleged whiplash injuries in car accidents became so bad that the Government were forced to legislate a cap on the maximum claim, in order to prevent Motor Insurance Premiums from spiralling totally out of control.

They were known as Golden Collars.

knotlob

MaraJade · #56 (**permalink**) 09-22-2010, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knotlob

I asked my optician about that and probably also CooperVision for Biofinity and both replied that it is strictly one month, even if worn only a few days in the month. That doesn't make much sense to me and being an engineer I like to be told, 'why' and not 'just because that's the way it is or we said so'. Is it protein build up causing a reduction in oxygen permeability? That was what my optician suggested, but then that would surely suggest you could wear the lens for a longer time than a calendar month if only worn a few days/week. Also, if you used a very good cleaning regime, perhaps ultrasonic, the lenses would be very clean and the issue of protein build up becomes less important.

Having said that I have talked to other contact lens manufacturers and asking the same question, but not specifying a particular brand of lens. This time the representative said yes, you could wear the lens based on the number of times you wore the lens, within reason. i.e. you couldn't really expect to wear the lens for 30 months if you only wore it once/month.

knotlob

Might the time limit for contact lenses have something to do with physically handling them to put them in and take them out? I don't know--maybe a coating gets rubbed off a little every time you touch the lens or something? Then after about 30 touches there's not enough of the coating left to make the lenses feel comfortable in your eyes?

Knotlob · #57 (**permalink**) 09-22-2010, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaraJade

Might the time limit for contact lenses have something to do with physically handling them to put them in and take them out? I don't know--maybe a coating gets rubbed off a little every time you touch the lens or something? Then after about 30 touches there's not enough of the coating left to make the lenses feel comfortable in your eyes?

Some lenses are coated (plasma) to improve wettability/comfort but this tends to change the chemical/physical structure of the lens surface, so it is integrally bonded to the lens and provided you don't use an abrasive cleaner, it should stay put.

Some lenses may be soaked in some sort of 'comfort' agent (Air Optix), but that sometimes causes more problems than it solves and the lenses will last longer than the comfort agent, if used according to the manufacturer's guidelines.

Monthly lenses may be slightly thicker than Daily lenses if made of the same material (e.g. B&L SofLens Daily & 59) to better withstand mechanical handling and cleaning.

Some Daily Disposable lenses clearly last longer than other Daily Disposable lenses (i.e. for someone who doesn't need the specific benefits a Daily Disposable Lens offers).

As far as I can ascertain, the two factors, which would limit the life of any lens will be the Mechanical Integrity (does it stand up to proper cleaning/rubbing and general handling?) and the degree of protein deposit build up on the lens.

You have to consider users of Vial/Annual Lenses to put it into perspective. I used to wear Annual lenses and they would last 12-16 months say. By that time there was some deposits on them, but if I had perhaps used Ultrasonic Cleaning, they would probably have lasted much longer. So even without ultrasonic cleaning these lenses were lasting 365-487 days. Now I don't really think there is that much difference between a monthly and an Annual Lens as far as mechanical integrity goes. The Monthly lenses are available in higher Dk values but that shouldn't be a factor in the life of the lens. In fact, some manufacturers claim that silicone hydrogel is less prone to protein build up than the typical hydrogels used in vial lenses.

Lurker2010 has suggested that less efficient cleaning of disposable lenses with 'no rub' cleaning solutions may be allowing protein deposits to accumulate rapidly. Maybe this is a factor in the convenience age, in which we live.

If you want to be charitable to the lens manufacturers, they are applying a conservative lens life policy, which is safe for the majority of users, including a percentage who are a bit lax in their lens care.

knotlob

Stairwaytoheaven · #58 (**permalink**) 09-22-2010, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knotlob

Some lenses are coated (plasma) to improve wettability/comfort but this tends to change the chemical/physical structure of the lens surface, so it is integrally bonded to the lens and provided you don't use an abrasive cleaner, it should stay put.

Some lenses may be soaked in some sort of 'comfort' agent (Air Optix), but that sometimes causes more problems than it solves and the lenses will last longer than the comfort agent, if used according to the manufacturer's guidelines.

Monthly lenses may be slightly thicker than Daily lenses if made of the same material (e.g. B&L SofLens Daily & 59) to better withstand mechanical handling and cleaning.

Some Daily Disposable lenses clearly last longer than other Daily Disposable lenses (i.e. for someone who doesn't need the specific benefits a Daily Disposable Lens offers).

As far as I can ascertain, the two factors, which would limit the life of any lens will be the Mechanical Integrity (does it stand up to proper cleaning/rubbing and general handling?) and the degree of protein deposit build up on the lens.

You have to consider users of Vial/Annual Lenses to put it into perspective. I used to wear Annual lenses and they would last 12-16 months say. By that time there was some deposits on them, but if I had perhaps used Ultrasonic Cleaning, they would probably have lasted much longer. So even without ultrasonic cleaning these lenses were lasting 365-487 days. Now I don't really think there is that much difference between a monthly and an Annual Lens as far as mechanical integrity goes. The Monthly lenses are available in higher Dk values but that shouldn't be a factor in the life of the lens. In fact, some manufacturers claim that silicone hydrogel is less prone to protein build up than the typical hydrogels used in vial lenses.

Lurker2010 has suggested that less efficient cleaning of disposable lenses with 'no rub' cleaning solutions may be allowing protein deposits to accumulate rapidly. Maybe this is a factor in the convenience age, in which we live.

If you want to be charitable to the lens manufacturers, they are applying a conservative lens life policy, which is safe for the majority of users, including a percentage who are a bit lax in their lens care.

knotlob

Thank you for that answer to MaraJade's question. It was very well thought out.

Now about this "conservative lens life policy," does that mean that a "monthly" lens might be safely worn for a little longer, say five weeks, in an emergency?

Knotlob · #59 (**permalink**) 09-22-2010, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stairwaytoheaven

Thank you for that answer to MaraJade's question. It was very well thought out.

Now about this "conservative lens life policy," does that mean that a "monthly" lens might be safely worn for a little longer, say five weeks, in an emergency?

I don't want to comment on specific cases because I don't know your eyes. I think I could get away with that when I was wearing Biofinity and using a Peroxide Cleaning/Disinfectant regime, e.g. if I had forgotten to pack spare Biofinity lenses whilst away from home on an extended business trip, vacation, etc. I didn't do that as a habit, but stuck to the suggested monthly regime.

If you don't have specific problems with protein build up or allergies, you would probably be OK, but really it is something you should discuss with your eye care professional (ECP). I don't see any problem challenging or questioning anything the ECP says, so that you fully understand and agree with what they are saying and that it makes sense. In this case, what would/could happen if you wore the lenses 25% longer.

knotlob

oingoboingo · #60 (**permalink**) 09-22-2010, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knotlob

I don't want to comment on specific cases because I don't know your eyes. I think I could get away with that when I was wearing Biofinity and using a Peroxide Cleaning/Disinfectant regime, e.g. if I had forgotten to pack spare Biofinity lenses whilst away from home on an extended business trip, vacation, etc. I didn't do that as a habit, but stuck to the suggested monthly regime.

If you don't have specific problems with protein build up or allergies, you would probably be OK, but really it is something you should discuss with your eye care professional (ECP). I don't see any problem challenging or questioning anything the ECP says, so that you fully understand and agree with what they are saying and that it makes sense. In this case, what would/could happen if you wore the lenses 25% longer.

knotlob

That 25% longer policy sounds good. I don't think that this would really happen, but I wouldn't want someone to go into a full-on panic attack if they should wake up in the morning and realize that they forgot to take their daily disposable contacts out.

lurker2010 · #61 (**permalink**) 09-22-2010, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oingoboingo

That 25% longer policy sounds good. I don't think that this would really happen, but I wouldn't want someone to go into a full-on panic attack if they should wake up in the morning and realize that they forgot to take their daily disposable contacts out.

Actually sleeping with a lens isn't designed for extended (overnight) wear can be very bad. Never a good idea.

I don't agree with the 25% policy. There are still some lenses sold with different replacement schedules at different price points. Same lens is sold as an annual and quarterly lens. 400% works.

People who plan to routinely extend the wear schedule need to do homework. Learn to check for rips. Learn to look for protein, and other, deposits. Learn about cleaning and disinfecting. Cleaning with cleaners and rubbing may be needed. Enzyme cleaners may be required.

Knotlob · #62 (**permalink**) 09-23-2010, 03:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lurker2010

Actually sleeping with a lens isn't designed for extended (overnight) wear can be very bad. Never a good idea.

I don't agree with the 25% policy. There are still some lenses sold with different replacement schedules at different price points. Same lens is sold as an annual and quarterly lens. 400% works.

People who plan to routinely extend the wear schedule need to do homework. Learn to check for rips. Learn to look for protein, and other, deposits. Learn about cleaning and disinfecting. Cleaning with cleaners and rubbing may be needed. Enzyme cleaners may be required.

Some Clarification may be in order here.

Yes, sleeping in lenses overnight is NOT recommended, but especially with the modern silicone hydrogel lenses (high Dk) you would be very unlucky if you did suffer serious problems if you accidentally slept ONE night only with them in. To be clear to everyone, we are NOT talking about regular overnight wear, just one night's accidental wear. No need to panic and go to the outpatient department at the local hospital the next morning, unless there are obviously signs something is amiss.

The 25% extra wear I mentioned applied ONLY to an emergency situation with a Monthly lens. I said in my case, wearing Biofinity - high Dk value lenses and cleaning with a peroxide system, I thought I could probably get away with that in an emergency only. I don't have heavy protein deposits and I didn't extend the life of monthly lenses beyond the one month recommended by (European) CooperVision, when I wore Biofinity lenses.

As I said, it depends on personal factors, everyone's eyes are different and it needs to be discussed with your eye care professional.

As Lurker2010 says, wearers who consciously make a decision to regularly extend the life of contact lenses need to be much more rigorous in their care of contact lenses (including the full inspection, thorough cleaning & perhaps using ultrasonic cleaning to ensure full removal of protein and other deposits). Their wear regime should be discussed with their ECP so that they are made fully aware of the possible consequences of this action.

knotlob

lurker2010 · #63 (**permalink**) 09-23-2010, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knotlob

Some Clarification may be in order here.

Yes, sleeping in lenses overnight is NOT recommended, but especially with the modern silicone hydrogel lenses (high Dk) you would be very unlucky if you did suffer serious problems if you accidentally slept ONE night only with them in. To be clear to everyone, we are NOT talking about regular overnight wear, just one night's accidental wear. No need to panic and go to the outpatient department at the local hospital the next morning, unless there are obviously signs something is amiss.

To clarify further, this thread talks about daily disposable lenses. I don't think the TruEye lens sold in the US is suitable for overnight wear. The Dk value isn't as high as most lenses approved for overnight wear. I'm almost 100% sure none of the other daily lenses are suitable for overnight wear.

It's not a matter of marketing or FDA filing. You don't blink when you sleep. Your eye doesn't get enough oxygen. There is a reason why a lens isn't approved for overnight wear.

The few times I fell asleep wearing my lenses, watching TV, I've had to flood my eyes with saline in order to remove the lens. My vision was blurry for a few hours after I removed the lenses.

I used to wear vial lenses. The gold standard of care (US) was the AOSept system. You cleaned your lenses by rubbing them with a few drops of a cleaning product. You rinsed them with saline. You put them in a "cup" with hydrogen peroxide. Once a week you added an enzyme tablet to the cup.

Daily lenses simplify the care. People shouldn't be stretching the wear cycle without making sure the lens care is appropriate.

I'm not disagreeing with Knotlob. Many of the silicon hydorgel lenses are either approved for extended wear or a substantially the same as a lens that's approved for extended wear. Sleeping with such a lens, by accident, may not be the end of the world. Not a bad idea to ask your idea doctor about occasionally sleeping with such a lens. Some people should never sleep with any lens in your eye. Also possible your eye doctor would prescribe a different lens if you think you'll want to sleep in with your lenses occasionally.

Knotlob · #64 (**permalink**) 09-23-2010, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lurker2010

To clarify further, this thread talks about daily disposable lenses. I don't think the TruEye lens sold in the US is suitable for overnight wear. The Dk value isn't as high as most lenses approved for overnight wear. I'm almost 100% sure none of the other daily lenses are suitable for overnight wear.

It's not a matter of marketing or FDA filing. You don't blink when you sleep. Your eye doesn't get enough oxygen. There is a reason why a lens isn't approved for overnight wear.

The few times I fell asleep wearing my lenses, watching TV, I've had to flood my eyes with saline in order to remove the lens. My vision was blurry for a few hours after I removed the lenses.

I used to wear vial lenses. The gold standard of care (US) was the AOSept system. You cleaned your lenses by rubbing them with a few drops of a cleaning product. You rinsed them with saline. You put them in a "cup" with hydrogen peroxide. Once a week you added an enzyme tablet to the cup.

Daily lenses simplify the care. People shouldn't be stretching the wear cycle without making sure the lens care is appropriate.

I'm not disagreeing with Knotlob. Many of the silicon hydorgel lenses are either approved for extended wear or a substantially the same as a lens that's approved for extended wear. Sleeping with such a lens, by accident, may not be the end of the world. Not a bad idea to ask your idea doctor about occasionally sleeping with such a lens. Some people should never sleep with any lens in your eye. Also possible your eye doctor would prescribe a different lens if you think you'll want to sleep in with your lenses occasionally.

Fair points Lurker 2010

The thread is about 1 Day TruEye but has wandered a little at times as is the norm

.

True, the US version of 1 Day TruEye does not have a stellar Dk performance value and I don't think it's approved for overnight wear (being a Daily Disposable lens).

I have fallen asleep with lenses in, but fortunately, usually only for maybe 20-30 mins (power nap) and very very seldom have I forgotten to take lenses out overnight. That was in the good old days of the complicated cleaning regime Lurker 2010 has described.

There is quite obviously a huge difference in how people feel on waking after an unplanned sleep with lenses in. I never really had much ill effect, or at least any discomfort lasted only minutes, but others have described symptoms akin to the lenses sticking to their eyes, etc. So it just confirms the phrase that everybody's eyes are different and react in different ways.

I would agree that the generally low Dk values of most Daily Disposable lenses and also the longer term hydrogel lenses makes them totally unsuitable for extended wear. However, at least one US lens manufacturer claims on their website that some of their hydrogel lenses with low Dk are suitable for extended wear. My optician disagreed entirely of course. When I tried to query the company about this statement, they did not wish to discuss it with a mere lens wearer. The whole Patient Care leaflet that contained this information was rather 'generic' in it's nature and looked like no one with any knowledge had approved it for publication. Quite incredible!

knotlob

Bondjamesbond · #65 (**permalink**) 10-04-2010, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lurker2010

Sleeping with such a lens, by accident, may not be the end of the world. Not a bad idea to ask your doctor about occasionally sleeping with such a lens. Some people should never sleep with any lens in your eye. Also possible your eye doctor would prescribe a different lens if you think you'll want to sleep in with your lenses occasionally.

I think that's what it all comes down to. If you're not sure that it's safe to wear your contact lenses overnight, ask your eye doctor, who knows your specific eyes and can tell you if you can sleep in the brand of contact lenses in question.

ElaineKramer · #66 (**permalink**) 11-02-2010, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knotlob

. . . at least one US lens manufacturer claims on their website that some of their hydrogel lenses with low Dk are suitable for extended wear. My optician disagreed entirely of course. When I tried to query the company about this statement, they did not wish to discuss it with a mere lens wearer. The whole Patient Care leaflet that contained this information was rather 'generic' in it's nature and looked like no one with any knowledge had approved it for publication. Quite incredible!

knotlob

That's a shame that they wouldn't talk to you. When you started asking about Dk values, didn't they get a clue that you were not an average lens wearer? I guess not.

Knotlob · #67 (**permalink**) 11-02-2010, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElaineKramer

That's a shame that they wouldn't talk to you. When you started asking about Dk values, didn't they get a clue that you were not an average lens wearer? I guess not.

CooperVision US have a pretty dire approach to contact lens wearers customer service. Others will eventually give you the information you want. However, they really want you to talk to your own Eye Care Specialist - which is OK, if they know the answer.

I don't like the attitude of some contact lens manufacturers and this may persuade me to choose someone else's product - really hate being fed dumbed down information by these outfits.

knotlob

Earthshock · #68 (**permalink**) 11-03-2010, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knotlob

CooperVision US have a pretty dire approach to contact lens wearers customer service. Others will eventually give you the information you want. However, they really want you to talk to your own Eye Care Specialist - which is OK, if they know the answer.

I don't like the attitude of some contact lens manufacturers and this may persuade me to choose someone else's product - really hate being fed dumbed down information by these outfits.

knotlob

When you say "dumbed down," do you mean an answer that's simplified for common usage like "bright red light" instead of "laser", or do you mean a non-answer like "Oh, you wouldn't understand"?

Maybe something else?

Knotlob · #69 (**permalink**) 11-03-2010, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earthshock

When you say "dumbed down," do you mean an answer that's simplified for common usage like "bright red light" instead of "laser", or do you mean a non-answer like "Oh, you wouldn't understand"?

Maybe something else?

I mean like the laser thing, but just motherhood statements which are no use to man nor beasts. I don't think it's a case of "you wouldn't understand", but more of "we are not allowed to discuss this with you", particularly if you ask "exactly why is it a one day lens cannot be worn for longer - I mean what actually happens when you wear it longer?" I suspect that many people (but not all) could wear the lens longer and indeed the lens companies freely admit they know that many people do wear lens longer (i.e. more days) than they recommend. We know that some lens companies have in the past, if not now, sold lenses, which have been packaged as both as Daily Disposables and also as say Monthly Disposables. But profits are profits. They are not registered charities.

knotlob

Enah · #70 (**permalink**) 11-03-2010, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knotlob

I mean like the laser thing, but just motherhood statements which are no use to man nor beasts. I don't think it's a case of "you wouldn't understand", but more of "we are not allowed to discuss this with you", particularly if you ask "exactly why is it a one day lens cannot be worn for longer - I mean what actually happens when you wear it longer?" I suspect that many people (but not all) could wear the lens longer and indeed the lens companies freely admit they know that many people do wear lens longer (i.e. more days) than they recommend. We know that some lens companies have in the past, if not now, sold lenses, which have been packaged as both as Daily Disposables and also as say Monthly Disposables. But profits are profits. They are not registered charities.

knotlob

The Good Book says that "the love of money is the root of all evil" and it's true. Whenever you see people lying and cheating, it's almost always because there's money to be made. The same can be said of these contact lens companies that sell monthly lenses as daily. They make more money that way. Never mind people's health.

Artie · #71 (**permalink**) 11-04-2010, 12:57 PM

I offer an observation intended to clarify confusion about "guilt" and "innocence" with regard to the issue of settlements of civil litigation, e.g., J&J's $860 million settlement in 2001 re allegations that consumers were deceived into believing that 1-day Acuvues could only be worn once even though they were virtually identical to Acuvue 2 (week) lenses:

When a defendant settles a lawsuit, the court validates the settlement without rendering any legal opinion about culpability or the merits of the allegations. Defendents settle for various reasons, including expediency, avoidance of further legal expenses, and/or a desire to avoid establishing a definite legal precedent that could be cited in other, similar litigation.

MaraJade · #72 (**permalink**) 11-04-2010, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Artie

I offer an observation intended to clarify confusion about "guilt" and "innocence" with regard to the issue of settlements of civil litigation, e.g., J&J's $860 million settlement in 2001 re allegations that consumers were deceived into believing that 1-day Acuvues could only be worn once even though they were virtually identical to Acuvue 2 (week) lenses:

When a defendant settles a lawsuit, the court validates the settlement without rendering any legal opinion about culpability or the merits of the allegations. Defendents settle for various reasons, including expediency, avoidance of further legal expenses, and/or a desire to avoid establishing a definite legal precedent that could be cited in other, similar litigation.

Thanks for explaining this case, Artie. Let me see if I understand you.

Let's say I sold you a car, and as soon as you got it home, the engine fell out on the driveway. You threaten to take me to court. I insist that the car was fine when you drove it from the lot, and you disagree.
So to avoid a messy, drawn-out and expensive court case and to make sure the outcome of this case won't affect future cases, I agree to pay for a new engine for your car. I'm not admitting guilt, but just helping to fix the problem and avoid the negative press that would accompany the publicity. I give you a check, we shake hands and then we never speak of this again. Does that sound right?

Uhura · #73 (**permalink**) 11-23-2010, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Artie

I offer an observation intended to clarify confusion about "guilt" and "innocence" with regard to the issue of settlements of civil litigation, e.g., J&J's $860 million settlement in 2001 re allegations that consumers were deceived into believing that 1-day Acuvues could only be worn once even though they were virtually identical to Acuvue 2 (week) lenses:

When a defendant settles a lawsuit, the court validates the settlement without rendering any legal opinion about culpability or the merits of the allegations. Defendents settle for various reasons, including expediency, avoidance of further legal expenses, and/or a desire to avoid establishing a definite legal precedent that could be cited in other, similar litigation.

Run that by me again? Maybe without words like "culpability" and "validates the settlement."

Artie · #74 (**permalink**) 12-05-2010, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaraJade

Thanks for explaining this case, Artie. Let me see if I understand you.

Let's say I sold you a car, and as soon as you got it home, the engine fell out on the driveway. You threaten to take me to court. I insist that the car was fine when you drove it from the lot, and you disagree.
So to avoid a messy, drawn-out and expensive court case and to make sure the outcome of this case won't affect future cases, I agree to pay for a new engine for your car. I'm not admitting guilt, but just helping to fix the problem and avoid the negative press that would accompany the publicity. I give you a check, we shake hands and then we never speak of this again. Does that sound right?

Almost right. I probably have to sue you to get you to settle. One big reason you'd settle is because your expensive lawyers' meter is running with every passing week. Also, you might lose, and I might be awarded even more money than the sum I'd agree to accept in a settlement. In addition, the court, in ratifying/validating a settlement agreement, doesn't actually declare anyone responsible or guilty, i.e., culpable (in legal lingo), and the specific financial terms of the settlement can be kept private (versus a court verdict that would be a matter of public record); privacy didn't pertain in the J&J settlement I cited because it was a class action and had to be publicized so that everyone in the affected class would know they'd won something, even though they weren't directly involved in pressing the lawsuit. A settlement means the lawsuit is dropped/ended. Settlement=no court precedent that a different plaintiff could use in court as a persuasive lever to sue you separately for a similar reason.

Artie · #75 (**permalink**) 12-05-2010, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uhura

Run that by me again? Maybe without words like "culpability" and "validates the settlement."

Why should I? Try running the words you don't understand by your dictionary; that's what it's for. Don't have a dictionary? Buy one.

ICU2 · #76 (**permalink**) 12-06-2010, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Artie

Why should I? Try running the words you don't understand by your dictionary; that's what it's for. Don't have a dictionary? Buy one.

Why should you? Your answer was unclear, that's why. If you try to explain something, and the person you're explaining it to ask for clarification, it's your fault for not being plain enough. If you're a fair person, you'll try to make it plainer.

This is Lens 101, not "Legal Proceedings 500." How do you expect people coming to a contact lens site to understand legal terms like "validates the settlement" and "culpability"?

Maybe you should buy a dictionary and look up "arrogant."

Dragonslayer · #77 (**permalink**) 12-10-2010, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knotlob

We know that some lens companies have in the past, if not now, sold lenses, which have been packaged as both as Daily Disposables and also as say Monthly Disposables.

Do we? Who has sold lenses packaged as both daily disposable and monthly? They're not doing it any more, are they?

Knotlob · #78 (**permalink**) 12-10-2010, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragonslayer

Do we? Who has sold lenses packaged as both daily disposable and monthly? They're not doing it any more, are they?

There's a clue in the posts already contained in this thread! Look at post #5 by Lurker2010. He gives two links for you to follow. There will be many more if you Google from there.

knotlob

lurker2010 · #79 (**permalink**) 12-11-2010, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragonslayer

Do we? Who has sold lenses packaged as both daily disposable and monthly? They're not doing it any more, are they?

You can go to the FDA website and read the 510(k) reports. Some lenses are filed for either daily use or planned replacement. You can read the lens specifications. Some daily lenses are substantially the same as a lens which is marketed for planned replacement. You can use google and at least see which lens companies market the identical lens in different countries with different replacement intervals.

I've exchanged PMs with Knotlob but I'm not not going to post the name of any specific lens or lens manufacturer. People need to consult with their eye doctor and do their own research. Daily lenses are popular, in part, because the majority of patients are unwilling or unable to do what's required to safely disinfect and clean a lens.

edited to add:

Patients who've previously worn quarterly (or even "annual" vial lenses) know how to clean and disinfect a lens. Check and see if it's ripped. Those patients might either ask their doctor (or even try it). Your question is If I'm running out of lenses how many days could I use a lens until I get my new order. What's the best way to disinfect the lens at night? Make sure it's clear you're not asking about sleeping in the lenses but are asking about taking them out at night. A daily lens may not hold up to the kind of rubbing that's required for proper cleaning.

Ordersixtysix · #80 (**permalink**) 12-13-2010, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lurker2010

A daily lens may not hold up to the kind of rubbing that's required for proper cleaning.

I always thought that was that major difference between daily and extended wear contact lenses. The dailies are too thin to clean and reuse, like facial tissue. Facial tissues are not like a handkerchief you can sneeze into and then throw into the washing machine and reuse.
I also thought there was an issue with oxygen. Daily lenses don't have that special coating that keeps lenses clean enough for more than a day to let oxygen flow through.

lurker2010 · #81 (**permalink**) 12-13-2010, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ordersixtysix

I always thought that was that major difference between daily and extended wear contact lenses. The dailies are too thin to clean and reuse, like facial tissue. Facial tissues are not like a handkerchief you can sneeze into and then throw into the washing machine and reuse.
I also thought there was an issue with oxygen. Daily lenses don't have that special coating that keeps lenses clean enough for more than a day to let oxygen flow through.

An extended wear lens is a lens that's approved for wearing overnight. This thread is talking about removing a daily disposable lens, cleaning (disinfecting) the lens overnight then wearing it the next day.

The difference between many daily lenses, and the equivalent 14 day lens, may not be that dramatic. Certainly not equivalent to the difference between a handkerchief and a tissue. Not even equivalent to a one ply tissue vs a two ply.

I suspect many 14 day lenses won't hold up to the kind of rub cleaning that's considered part of effective cleaning.

That "special coating" makes sure the lens remains comfortable throughout the day. Lenses marketed for quarterly or annual use may be designed/coated to be resistant to protein deposits.

Columbia · #82 (**permalink**) 12-13-2010, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lurker2010

An extended wear lens is a lens that's approved for wearing overnight. This thread is talking about removing a daily disposable lens, cleaning (disinfecting) the lens overnight then wearing it the next day.

Okay, so we're not talking about wearing a daily lens 24 hours straight then, right?

Knotlob · #83 (**permalink**) 12-13-2010, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Columbia

Okay, so we're not talking about wearing a daily lens 24 hours straight then, right?

No, we are NOT talking about 24hours/day contact lens wear.

However, some Daily' disposable contact lenses are made of the same material as the Monthly disposable equivalent, but may be very slightly thicker in the case of the Monthly disposable. I have tried this with one Daily disposable lens and was able to wear it a lot longer than the one day suggested by the manufacturer. You cannot (as Lurker 2010 points out) do this with every Daily disposable lens, not can everybody expect to do this - tear chemistry differences may make this impractical.

Ultrasonic cleaning may extend the life of the lens as the ultrasound can clean the lens thoroughly, without the same degree of mechanical rubbing that may be required to keep the lens clean otherwise.

I am not convinced that 2 weekly, monthly or even Vial/Annual lenses have any special coating to reduce protein deposit build up. Most coatings claim to improve comfort by improving wettability of the lens, etc. Silicone hydrogel lenses are reportedly better at resisting protein deposit build up than the cheaper older hydrogel lens materials.

knotlob

BusDriver · #84 (**permalink**) 12-13-2010, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knotlob

No, we are NOT talking about 24hours/day contact lens wear.

However, some Daily' disposable contact lenses are made of the same material as the Monthly disposable equivalent, but may be very slightly thicker in the case of the Monthly disposable. I have tried this with one Daily disposable lens and was able to wear it a lot longer than the one day suggested by the manufacturer. You cannot (as Lurker 2010 points out) do this with every Daily disposable lens, not can everybody expect to do this - tear chemistry differences may make this impractical.

Ultrasonic cleaning may extend the life of the lens as the ultrasound can clean the lens thoroughly, without the same degree of mechanical rubbing that may be required to keep the lens clean otherwise.

I am not convinced that 2 weekly, monthly or even Vial/Annual lenses have any special coating to reduce protein deposit build up. Most coatings claim to improve comfort by improving wettability of the lens, etc. Silicone hydrogel lenses are reportedly better at resisting protein deposit build up than the cheaper older hydrogel lens materials.

knotlob

That's a pretty good summary, Knotlob. Thank you.

Xwing · #85 (**permalink**) 12-14-2010, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knotlob

No, we are NOT talking about 24hours/day contact lens wear.

However, some Daily' disposable contact lenses are made of the same material as the Monthly disposable equivalent, but may be very slightly thicker in the case of the Monthly disposable. I have tried this with one Daily disposable lens and was able to wear it a lot longer than the one day suggested by the manufacturer. You cannot (as Lurker 2010 points out) do this with every Daily disposable lens, not can everybody expect to do this - tear chemistry differences may make this impractical.

knotlob

I'm afriad people are going to read this and think "Knotlob says that I can wear my daily disposable lenses 'a lot longer than the one day suggested by the manufacturer,' and he's really smart so I'm going to wear my contacts until they hurt." Not paying any attention to the "you cannot do this with every daily disposable lens, nor can everybody expect to do this" part.

Is there anything you'd like to add, in case someone is thinking about wearing their daily disposable lenses for as long as they can stand it?

Knotlob · #86 (**permalink**) 12-14-2010, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xwing

I'm afriad people are going to read this and think "Knotlob says that I can wear my daily disposable lenses 'a lot longer than the one day suggested by the manufacturer,' and he's really smart so I'm going to wear my contacts until they hurt." Not paying any attention to the "you cannot do this with every daily disposable lens, nor can everybody expect to do this" part.

Is there anything you'd like to add, in case someone is thinking about wearing their daily disposable lenses for as long as they can stand it?

I don't think it is necessary to add anything else. If people choose to ignore the caveats I have already included, then they would presumably ignore any other warnings or advice. But to add further information if forum members think it is necessary:

I have not mentioned which lens I tried this with. If you feel you must try this, then you MUST do your own research and educate yourselves on the possible medical risks to your eyesight. Otherwise, follow your eye care professional's advice.

Several forum members have already warned against wearing lenses until they feel uncomfortable - that may be too late - the damage is already done.

Lens manufacturers are fully aware that some wearers do not follow manufacturer's guidelines, nor their eye care professional's advice on wearing regime, eye health care, etc.

While I have tried this with one particular lens (and only in the interests of science), I don't wear Daily Disposables except in an emergency. Most of them have rather low Dk (oxygen permeability) and therefore, if wearing soft lenses, I would probably be wearing Biofinity on a one month cycle before discarding them. At present I am wearing RGP lenses and the life of the lens is undetermined (although I just killed one prematurely by standing on it

).

Many eye care professionals recommend daily disposable lenses and they certainly have their place for some contact lens wearers. They indeed be the only type of lens, which is suitable. High oxygen permeability is not the absolute Holy Grail, but if there are no excessive tear protein/lipid deposits within the tears, good comfort, visual acuity, price, etc. are combined with high oxygen permeability, as in Biofinity and some other silicone hydrogel lenses, then for me a monthly disposable is often better.

knotlob

Foxyboxer · #87 (**permalink**) 12-14-2010, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knotlob

I don't think it is necessary to add anything else. If people choose to ignore the caveats I have already included, then they would presumably ignore any other warnings or advice. But to add further information if forum members think it is necessary:

I have not mentioned which lens I tried this with. If you feel you must try this, then you MUST do your own research and educate yourselves on the possible medical risks to your eyesight. Otherwise, follow your eye care professional's advice.

Several forum members have already warned against wearing lenses until they feel uncomfortable - that may be too late - the damage is already done.

Lens manufacturers are fully aware that some wearers do not follow manufacturer's guidelines, nor their eye care professional's advice on wearing regime, eye health care, etc.

While I have tried this with one particular lens (and only in the interests of science), I don't wear Daily Disposables except in an emergency. Most of them have rather low Dk (oxygen permeability) and therefore, if wearing soft lenses, I would probably be wearing Biofinity on a one month cycle before discarding them. At present I am wearing RGP lenses and the life of the lens is undetermined (although I just killed one prematurely by standing on it

).

Many eye care professionals recommend daily disposable lenses and they certainly have their place for some contact lens wearers. They indeed be the only type of lens, which is suitable. High oxygen permeability is not the absolute Holy Grail, but if there are no excessive tear protein/lipid deposits within the tears, good comfort, visual acuity, price, etc. are combined with high oxygen permeability, as in Biofinity and some other silicone hydrogel lenses, then for me a monthly disposable is often better.

knotlob

I can kind of understand where X-wing is coming from. On a site like this you really have to be careful. I know that someone of average intelligence will probably not take unnecessary risks with their contact lenses, but I would still feel bad if I found out that someone had hurt themselves after reading something on Lens 101. This forum is supposed to help people, after all.

Knotlob · #88 (**permalink**) 12-15-2010, 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxyboxer

I can kind of understand where X-wing is coming from. On a site like this you really have to be careful. I know that someone of average intelligence will probably not take unnecessary risks with their contact lenses, but I would still feel bad if I found out that someone had hurt themselves after reading something on Lens 101. This forum is supposed to help people, after all.

If people cannot follow simple text on a forum, I would seriously doubt they would be capable of following their eye care practitioner's instructions and advice, that is assuming they have had an eye examination at all.

knotlob

Georgiaonmymind · #89 (**permalink**) 12-15-2010, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knotlob

If people cannot follow simple text on a forum, I would seriously doubt they would be capable of following their eye care practitioner's instructions and advice, that is assuming they have had an eye examination at all.

knotlob

My concern is that some people will do just that--follow the simple text on a forum that says that "daily" lenses and "monthly" lenses are really the same thing and you can wear any lens for a month because every lens is the same and anything that says different is just marketing BS. Everyone loves to spot a scam.

Like Foxyboxer said, most people would be too smart for that, but if someone was trusting enough to over wear their contacts because the read it on Lens 101, they might hurt their eyes and that would make me feel really bad.

Knotlob · #90 (**permalink**) 12-15-2010, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Georgiaonmymind

My concern is that some people will do just that--follow the simple text on a forum that says that "daily" lenses and "monthly" lenses are really the same thing and you can wear any lens for a month because every lens is the same and anything that says different is just marketing BS. Everyone loves to spot a scam.

Like Foxyboxer said, most people would be too smart for that, but if someone was trusting enough to over wear their contacts because the read it on Lens 101, they might hurt their eyes and that would make me feel really bad.

Well I think both Lurker 2010 and myself have made it abundantly clear that NOT everyone can expect to do this, nor can you do this with EVERY daily disposable lens. I said I had done it with ONE daily disposable lens. No one has said anywhere that you can do it with every disposable lens.

If people are too careless to read the full text (only three and a half lines after all and no big words) then they have no business varying their lens wear from what their eye care practitioner has told them.

knotlob

Stairwaytoheaven · #91 (**permalink**) 12-15-2010, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knotlob

Well I think both Lurker 2010 and myself have made it abundantly clear that NOT everyone can expect to do this, nor can you do this with EVERY daily disposable lens. I said I had done it with ONE daily disposable lens. No one has said anywhere that you can do it with every disposable lens.

If people are too careless to read the full text (only three and a half lines after all and no big words) then they have no business varying their lens wear from what their eye care practitioner has told them.

knotlob

One would hope that people would take advantage of the abundance of information right here on this forum.

Wendy94 · #92 (**permalink**) 01-10-2011, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knotlob

Well I think both Lurker 2010 and myself have made it abundantly clear that NOT everyone can expect to do this, nor can you do this with EVERY daily disposable lens. I said I had done it with ONE daily disposable lens. No one has said anywhere that you can do it with every disposable lens.

If people are too careless to read the full text (only three and a half lines after all and no big words) then they have no business varying their lens wear from what their eye care practitioner has told them.

knotlob

Unfortunately, we have seen that a few people will not go so far as to read three and a half lines of text. Some don't even write words with more than three letters without abbreviating them to three letters or less.

O rly?

Yes, really.

Stylinbabe · #93 (**permalink**) 01-27-2011, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Georgiaonmymind

My concern is that some people will do just that--follow the simple text on a forum that says that "daily" lenses and "monthly" lenses are really the same thing and you can wear any lens for a month because every lens is the same and anything that says different is just marketing BS. Everyone loves to spot a scam.

Like Foxyboxer said, most people would be too smart for that, but if someone was trusting enough to over wear their contacts because the read it on Lens 101, they might hurt their eyes and that would make me feel really bad.

I'm with you Georgia. It's incredible the risks that people take these days. What gets me is when people wear their contact lenses too long because they say they can't afford to replace them more often. I would think that if you can't afford to use contacts properly, you can't afford them period.

Wendy94 · #94 (**permalink**) 02-24-2011, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stylinbabe

I'm with you Georgia. It's incredible the risks that people take these days. What gets me is when people wear their contact lenses too long because they say they can't afford to replace them more often. I would think that if you can't afford to use contacts properly, you can't afford them period.

You're right, babe. If a person already knows that they can't replace their contact lenses at the proper time, they probably should not be wearing them at all. Doesn't the eye doctor have some kind of say in this situation?

Xwing · #95 (**permalink**) 05-06-2011, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wendy94

You're right, babe. If a person already knows that they can't replace their contact lenses at the proper time, they probably should not be wearing them at all. Doesn't the eye doctor have some kind of say in this situation?

You would think so, wouldn't you?

Artie · #96 (**permalink**) 05-26-2011, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReTina

Whatever it was that J & J and Vistakon was doing, evidently the Court did not consider it "wrongdoing." ...

Case closed? Any more questions or comments?

Because the parties agreed to settle the lawsuit before a verdict was reached, the case was ended and the court didn't get to decide anything, but rather only got to approve J&J's settlement plan to pay out $860 million to the class of plaintiffs.

Goldar · #97 (**permalink**) 05-26-2011, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Artie

Because the parties agreed to settle the lawsuit before a verdict was reached, the case was ended and the court didn't get to decide anything, but rather only got to approve J&J's settlement plan to pay out $860 million to the class of plaintiffs.

So it would be as if I got into a fight on the playground with my friend Larry, but before our teacher could give us our punishment, I apologized to Larry and promised to buy him lunch. Right? Something like that?

Artie · #98 (**permalink**) 05-28-2011, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by Artie:
Because the parties agreed to settle the lawsuit before a verdict was reached, the case was ended and the court didn't get to decide anything, but rather only got to approve J&J's settlement plan to pay out $860 million to the class of plaintiffs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goldar

So it would be as if I got into a fight on the playground with my friend Larry, but before our teacher could give us our punishment, I apologized to Larry and promised to buy him lunch. Right? Something like that?

Dear Goldar:
Well, maybe, if you were promising Larry a daily lunch for the next decade or so at the most expensive restaurant in town. Actually, no, your analogy doesn't quite work for these reasons: Larry (your metaphoric stand-in for the class-action plaintiffs) could not have been punished at all because he wasn't accused of wrongdoing. Your punishment for the alleged sucker punch, on the other hand, might have been so severe that you chose instead to convince the teacher to drop any penalty against you in exchange for your vow to buy all those expensive lunches for Larry.

lurker2010 · #99 (**permalink**) 05-30-2011, 08:41 PM

Analogies miss the full picture. Artie's explanations was probably as good as any analogy on this thread.

The lens companies were accused of wrong doings. The lens manufacturers didn't deny the facts. They claimed there was nothing wrong in marketing the same, or substantially equivalent, lens, for both daily disposable and planned replacement, use. They paid $$$$, agreed to stop the practice and agreed to stop going after eye professionals who prescribed a wear schedule (wearing a daily lens for more then one day) other then suggested by the lens mfg.

Golda missed the essence of the settlement and should read the entire settlement before continuing to post rubbish.

[b]The fact is lens manufacturers continue to market daily disposable lenses which are also marketed in the US (and/or other markets) for planned replacement./B]

.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Artie

Originally Posted by Artie:
Because the parties agreed to settle the lawsuit before a verdict was reached, the case was ended and the court didn't get to decide anything, but rather only got to approve J&J's settlement plan to pay out $860 million to the class of plaintiffs.

Dear Goldar:
Well, maybe, if you were promising Larry a daily lunch for the next decade or so at the most expensive restaurant in town. Actually, no, your analogy doesn't quite work for these reasons: Larry (your metaphoric stand-in for the class-action plaintiffs) could not have been punished at all because he wasn't accused of wrongdoing. Your punishment for the alleged sucker punch, on the other hand, might have been so severe that you chose instead to convince the teacher to drop any penalty against you in exchange for your vow to buy all those expensive lunches for Larry.

eyecaramba · #**100** (**permalink**) 05-31-2011, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lurker2010

Analogies miss the full picture. Artie's explanations was probably as good as any analogy on this thread.

The lens companies were accused of wrong doings. The lens manufacturers didn't deny the facts. They claimed there was nothing wrong in marketing the same, or substantially equivalent, lens, for both daily disposable and planned replacement, use. They paid $$$$, agreed to stop the practice and agreed to stop going after eye professionals who prescribed a wear schedule (wearing a daily lens for more then one day) other then suggested by the lens mfg.

Golda missed the essence of the settlement and should read the entire settlement before continuing to post rubbish.

[b]The fact is lens manufacturers continue to market daily disposable lenses which are also marketed in the US (and/or other markets) for planned replacement./B]

.

*Sigh* Are we finished with this now? I stopped caring at around post #16.