Announcement

**Guest** · 11-Oct-2011, 12:35

SPOILER ALERT - don't read my post until you've checked out the site yourself!

Just by looking at the home page, I couldn't tell... however, it looked rather slick, so I assumed it was run by a company with something to sell... After reading a bit on what they had to say about dry eye treatment etc, they seemed to be pushing the Tear Lab Osmolarity test, so that made me assume that Tear Lab must be running the site, and the accredited eye centers are probably those that Tear Lab has taught how to use the osmolarity test.

Went to the about us page, and had my suspicions confirmed. (It's rather shady of them not to have put an About Us page up from the start... good for you for pushing them into it

)

As for what I think of it in its current state, I guess I'm indifferent... it wasn't a terribly useful site in terms of info on dry eye in my opinion... the information was very superficial, did not go into great detail... nothing special. As long as they have that About Us page, most people will probably check it out at some point and realize the site is biased towards their tear test.

**Hopeful2** · 11-Oct-2011, 13:21

My impressions:

First impression, the home page looks really polished. It shows an attractive looking female, smiling at me. I immediately think "What are you selling?" Maybe I am suspicious having just come away from lasik 5 months ago.

Looking at the 'locate a doctor', I'm not at all surprised that this site is sponsored by 'Tearlab'. The Toronto site also offers lasik. Kind of strange that they would offer both a Tearlab and Lasik under the same roof. 'Come get your lasik done and when you develop dry eyes, we'll use the Tearlab to access your tears.' Or maybe . . . just maybe, they plan on using the Tearlab to access a patient's tear status prior to surgery. Could they plan on using the Tearlab as a screening tool!! haha. . . integrity in the lasik industry???

**PotatoCakes** · 11-Oct-2011, 14:13

Disclaimer: You and I have already discussed this so I'm trying to be unbiased in my "first" impressions but I'm using a disclaimer for a reason.

Agreed with PPs, it's slick. It DOES look like an advertisement; I just can't tell what it's for on the first page except that it has something to do with dry eye.

On the first page, it says that the site is sponsored by Accredited Dry Eye Centers. That causes me pause because I don't know WTH an accredited dry eye center is. I mean, the last specialist I saw is considered one of the top in his field (despite his massive personality flaws that get in the way of him being a good physician). Is he accredited? I have no clue. I wouldn't consider his office a "Center" but I know that he gives lectures around the country about dry eye and other topics; he's also been involved with some groundbreaking research (serum drops, for instance). My current specialist is at a research center, a medical hospital where they are involved in research on a number of levels; are they accredited? Again, I have no clue. I know the facility and my specialist are well-respected, etc but does that mean they are accredited? What does accredited mean exactly? Is it a special (federal or state) license such as those you need to teach or to sell stocks and bonds? Based on my experience, there is no "accredited" for dry eye but maybe it means so little that the physicians I've seen don't mention it? Regardless, using the term "accredited" in this particular circumstance seems very misleading because as far as I can tell, it means nothing but implies more qualified.

I used to work with a nonprofit that dealt with an unusual disorder. We had a list of doctors that claimed interest or experience with this disorder; we gave it out to people who asked but it had a disclaimer that the doctors listed were doctors that let us know they were interested in treating people with this disorder, NOT that they were doctors we endorsed or recommended in anyway (we didn't do that).

Ok, step two (although I've already answered your question)... I "found" a doctor in my state. Turns out there is ONE "accredited" dry eye center in my state. Not only are none of the doctors that I've seen listed, including the ones who, IMO, would actually qualify as experts (this includes my former doctor who I don't have a high opinion of), but the physician listed isn't even in one of the metropolitan cities in my state. He's not even NEAR a metropolitan area. You'd think, since we have a medical school and multiple hospitals and clinics that there would be at least ONE in a metropolitan area? Apparently not. So, despite there being a medical school & research hospital, multiple clinics and such in a variety of cities around the state, the ONE, the SINGLE "accredited" physician is located in a town of less than 2000 people. This guy may be a great doctor but do I really believe that there's only one physician in my state who has the capacity to help me with my dry eyes, and he happens to live in a town hours away with less than 2000 people? Here's what I think... I think TearLab let's you "buy" accreditation because clearly, it's not based on actual licensing, expertise or anything else because there's just no way this guy would be the ONLY physician in my state to be accredited.

One last thing for those who are following this thread... They are tweeting their site constantly. Anyone who mentions #dryeye or something along those lines, they @mention them with a suggestion to go check out their forums and participate. They've hit me up more than once, which is how I found the site to begin with. That was over a month or so ago and at the time, they had no participants. I DO like that they have an "Ask a doctor" section but besides that, the site is useless to me. Not a lot of participants (one of the things that makes this site so great) and the shady use of words like "accredited".

**spmcc** · 11-Oct-2011, 16:03

Transparency is such a big deal in the scientific community (medicine, health care, epidemiology, research).

This means that conflicts of interest (which include self promotion for private or commercial gain) must be clearly declared.

I wish this was required on websites

**poppy** · 12-Oct-2011, 00:06

the site definitely looks like they are trying to sell something. It's annoying how they put an attractive young woman on the front page. Most dry eye sufferers are older! And I don't like the "Accredited Dry eye Center" label, it implies some kind of officially recognised/government approved standard.

**littlemermaid** · 12-Oct-2011, 02:26

1) first impression: scam, lack of company/charity name and upfront declaration of interest = product promotion hiding behind public interest facade
2) accredited centres: attempt to pretend there is a national/medical accrediting body, that embarrassing logo does make it clear clinicians are 'accredited' only by Tearlab

Same as SAAG. Quickly established it's Tearlab's PR's embarrassing attempt to mimic an independent public health information site and forum. This is immoral if vulnerable people conclude the 'accredited dry eye centers' are their only option. (Compare http://www.laboratoires-thea.com to see how product promotion's done with integrity, lovely state-of-the-art dry eye video from Prof Christophe Baudouin, also on YouTube, and their own good informative website http://www.tearlab.com/)

By all appropriate means, promote a useful product, tell us about the research behind it, let us know who's got it in clinic so we can talk to them and try it. This way (accredited doctors <bleah>), they're undermining their own credibility and product, which actually seems very good and useful internationally. Why not just focus on what a very useful and innovative piece of tear assessment equipment it is.

I think they need new spin-doctors

**Rebecca Petris** · 12-Oct-2011, 06:46

the "Accredited Dry eye Center" label, it implies some kind of officially recognised/government approved standard

accredited centres: attempt to pretend there is a national/medical accrediting body

Ah, I was wondering if this kind of response would emerge. That's where my key issue lies. In fact I had a doctor friend look at it and the email response I got was "the idea that a commercial enterprise has the right to "accredit" a physician is horse**** and I find it professionally offensive".

Originally posted by littlemermaid

By all appropriate means, promote a useful product, tell us about the research behind it, let us know who's got it in clinic so we can talk to them and try it. This way (accredited doctors <bleah>), they're undermining their own credibility and product, which actually seems very good and useful internationally. Why not just focus on what a very useful and innovative piece of tear assessment equipment it is.

Nicely put Littlemermaid... kind of what I was trying to communicate in some dialogue recently but impeded by my verboseness!!

p.s. THANKS everybody for the feedback... keep it coming!

**Hopeful2** · 12-Oct-2011, 07:44

The company really needs to say something like "find an accredited tearlab physician in your area". They might be able to say that these physicians have received training and therefore some sort of credit, in the use of the tearlab. The add really is misleading by not stipulatinge the nature of the accreditation up front.

**PotatoCakes** · 13-Oct-2011, 07:49

Turns out there IS a definition for accredited.
http://allaboutdryeye.com/2011/10/06...er-it-for-you/

Accredited Dry Eye Centers are practices dedicated to providing the highest quality of DED (Dry Eye Disease) care using advanced ophthalmic diagnostic techniques and treatments. In order to become accredited, these centers and their appropriate staff members must complete CLIA required activities, follow best practices for DED diagnosis and patient managemen and complete technicians’ certification training.
We are constantly updating our database of ADEC locations and you can search for one in your area here. If you received excellent care at any of their facilities, you can recommend a doctor here.

-----
I don't know what CLIA is or what is considered best practice though, OR whose technicians' certification training they are talking about (it's Tearlab obviously but to someone less suspicious...).
They also have a typo (no t at the end of management). So much for their proofreaders.

**Rebecca Petris** · 13-Oct-2011, 08:14

I confess I'm sympathetic to typos (esp. on a bad eye day).

But not to the word accredited in this context.

Wikipedia describes accreditation as "...a process in which certification of competency, authority, or credibility is presented.
Organizations that issue credentials or certify third parties against official standards are themselves formally accredited by accreditation bodies (such as UKAS); hence they are sometimes known as "accredited certification bodies". The accreditation process ensures that their certification practices are acceptable, typically meaning that they are competent to test and certify third parties, behave ethically and employ suitable quality assurance."

**elias** · 13-Oct-2011, 19:21

Well Rebecca, i am fascinated with the discussion you started. Before making a comment let me give your readers my bias. I am TearLab's CEO. I realize its not common for CEO's to get on chat rooms, but I really like this forum.
I am glad most people like the look of the allaboutdryeye site and let me suggest that the reason why no one can find what we are selling, is because we are not selling anything. TearLab does not sell anything to consumers! Our objective for the site is simply to match people with dry eye problems with doctors that have the latest diagnostic technology (TearLab) and have shown a desire to treat patients with dry eye disease.
You will see from previous comments that one of my personal pet-peeves is that most doctors think and treat dry eye disease as an inconvenience and not a serious disease ( i wrote this article on the subject http://thedryeyereview.com/2011/its-...ase-who-cares/)

You comments on accreditation would also be warranted except that TearLab accredited doctors have both TearLab's accreditation which includes CE and training for them and their staff, but more importantly, they also have passed a certification process administered by the state under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA).

I completely get the suspicion over poor marketing practices and i know that corporate America's track record is not good. I hope you will at least be open minded enough to give someone who is trying to do it right, the benefit of the doubt.
Thanks for the opportunity to express my opinion.
Elias

**kitty** · 14-Oct-2011, 16:48

At first blush, no clue to either question. Then I gave the logo a second look. The "TearLab" in the logo led me to visit tearlab.com. Obviously a marketing ploy. I'm concerned when the only "accredited" dry eye center in WA is in a tiny town (no slam as that is my home town) in the southern portion of the state, obviously the only eye clinic that uses the tearlab products.

**PotatoCakes** · 14-Oct-2011, 21:49

Elias -
I hope that it's ok for me to call you that. I appreciate the fact that you've taken the time to reply. I don't know if you'll continue to follow this thread but I truly hope so. I'll take you for your word that your intentions are noble but as you've said, you understand our suspicions about marketing practices and the reality is, that sometimes the CEO, marketing department and legal department aren't always in the same place, in addition, your job is to keep your shareholders happy and that means, your goal is to keep your company competitive and profitable more than it is to assuage the concerns of chronic dry eye sufferers. I don't have a problem with that; I believe in the ability to profit and I understand, probably more than you can know, how important it is to keep board members and shareholders happy.

You claim you are not selling anything but the reality is, you are indeed selling something. A site that is sponsored by "Accredited Dry Eye Centers" and offers an option to find an "Accredited Dry Eye Center" is very much selling the services of those physicians that belong to those centers. Since the "Accredited Centers" use your products, you are indirectly selling your products and directly rewarding physicians who use them.

It is also a well known fact in medical circles, from pharm to physicians, that the consumer now has the ability to drive their care. That's why various drugs and tests are now marketed to consumers. It's a plus and minus because patients now tend to be much more educated than they were in the past but at the same time, they can come into a physician's office demanding a drug or test that is unnecessary and in fact, may be dangerous (not to imply that yours is). There are great doctors who will advise their patients properly and there are lazy doctors who have no problem giving into patients' whims regardless of what might be best for the patient -- those physicians can be very profitable for companies that advertise to patients. As a CEO, I'm sure you are aware of all of these things.

As a chronic dry eye sufferer, I want your company to succeed; success is incentive to continue investing in research in products and equipment that will potentially help people like me. Tearlab (both TLB and TEAR) is currently a penny stock and started in 1996 as OccuLogix, Inc.; I noticed that the bulk of your compensation is in exercisable stock options.

It would make me feel a lot better if you better-defined the word accredited on your site. CLIA doesn't mean much (or anything) to most people. It's also not terribly rare since according to https://www.cms.gov/clia/ approximately 225,000 labs have that certification and it's basically required if you want to attend to Medicare/Medicaid patients; I notice you don't list all of the dry eye doctors/clinics who are CLIA certified.

TearLab's specific accreditation, means nothing at all, if as you say, TearLab is not marketing to consumers. Therefore, I propose that you change the words on your website to state "Find a TearLab Accredited Doctor" and "Sponsored by TearLab Accredited Doctors". It would be a much more upfront and honest approach because, as I'm sure you realize, accredited sounds much more official than a designation pretty much required by the government AND your company's accreditation. If putting TearLab in front of Accredited offends you, perhaps you shouldn't use the word accredited at all.

I look forward to your reply.

=====
For those who are interested in learning more about TearLab and it's finances, http://www.google.com/finance?q=TSE:TLB and http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:TEAR. Both are penny stocks with 52-week highs of 3.50 or less.
Elias' bio (one of the most complete I found): http://investing.businessweek.com/re...&ticker=TLB:CN
and http://www.brandprotect.com/board_of_directors.html
It appears that the majority of his compensation is in the form of stock; he is the former chair of a private equity firm and continues to serve on boards of companies that are in the private equity's portfolio.

**Rebecca Petris** · 14-Oct-2011, 22:36

Hi Elias,

Thanks for continuing the discussion! It's a very welcome novelty to us to be able to engage this way and I admire your willingness to do so!

Here's where I stand on the issue we've been discussing:

Allaboutdryeye.com is a Tearlab owned site. (Noncontroversial.) The stated purpose (per the press release) is to be "a new consumer website and social media program focused on supporting the Company's Accredited Dry Eye Centers program in North America." (Noncontroversial.)

I rather think a secondary goal of allaboutdryeye.com (as an adjunct to the stated one of supporting the accredited doctors) is to become a hub of dry eye information/discussion. As such I really appreciate it and am anticipating seeing a significant positive impact from it in increasing and improving the overall dialogue about dry eye between industry, doctors and patients. TearLab's board and scientific advisors include many of the people we all hold in great respect for their contributions to dry eye research, and having your company engage the public should be a really good thing for all of us.

Per points raised above in this thread, you're not trying to stealthily sell us consumers some unwanted widget (a point I think I grasped before I started reading, so I really don't need to be persuaded otherwise). And I am not bothered by the fact that the nearest accredited doctor is too far away for me to drive to. Market penetration takes time and I'm quite sure greater Seattle will have some before long.

However:

I take exception to TearLab's use of the phrase "The Accredited Dry Eye Centers" on www.allaboutdryeye.com no less now than when the conversation began some time ago on our respective blogs. I don't care how it's spun or where it's defined, in my opinion the phrase itself is still going to be essentially misleading.

I agree with PotatoCakes that "TearLab Accredited Doctors" or some similar phrasing would be more appropriate in every way for us consumers, and no less effective as regards the stated purpose of the site.

I think the over-clevered marketing is unworthy of TearLab. It's a throwback to the wiles of the LASIK industry that I for one found in every way offensive. You don't need that genre to do really well. You're going to do well anyway because we need these innovations.

My thanks again for your willingness to engage in the dialogue. In a field of medicine where so many patients feel dismissed, it's really refreshing to have someone listening to our opinions.

Sincerely,
Rebecca

Announcement

Your opinions please...

Your opinions please...

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment