I'm quite sure the contact lens and lens manufacturers and frame suppliers/manufacturers do not decide on the curriculum and training of ophthalmologists, nor do I think they have any significant contributions to the medical schools. I'd say at most maybe there's a bit of money from manufacturers of surgical equipment and prosthetics, but even with that I'm sure they would not be able to make any sort of demands on the curriculum. Ditto for optometry... they do make some contributions with supplies of contact lenses, but no one brand is promoted over another, and again, the equipment suppliers that make examination equipment make probably heftier contributions, but really, the curriculum is more dictated by whatever prof teaches the subject, and most of that is out of one or two textbooks. Yes, some of the textbook stuff is based on research, and we go back to our original discussion on how much effect do these companies have on research (I'm quite sure that the results of optics research isn't dictated by some collective research grant from manufacturers - there are plenty of other kinds of sources for funding, and there would be fame and money for researchers/practitioners who could show alternatives to optical correction). But a lot of the material is based on regular clinical experiences of doctors. The universities' power structure is not distributed in such a narrow manner or to people who would have much to gain from "bribes". It's like cops here... they get paid like 65k. It wouldn't be worth it to them in any manner to take like a $15 bribe to not issue you a ticket, or $200 to let a drug dealer go. The curriculum is not decided by one person and I think someone would always have something to gain by exposing others. It's an academic arena, not a business one.

As for GPs, yeah they used to get a lot of perks from drug companies to induce them to push one brand over another when prescribing, but I think this was just to induce them to use their brand, not based on volume. I'm not sure how these arrangements worked, but I do know there was a scandal and I think maybe some legal repercussions (conflict of interest type). But this was basically stuff like lunches, gifts, trips. And that was mostly GPs. The medical school and surgical community is not financially dependent on drug and other manufacturers for their livelihood, they generate their income from the government, just by doing the exams and surgery for most of their earnings, and the schools generate it from tuition, government, and some industry stuff, but I think they're happy to just be able to say that they're associated with a particular study. At most, doctors will give one brand preference over another - just bribes and politics, as in any other business. I think very few doctors, if any, benefit in a BIG way from bribes, and certainly this isn't a widespread infiltration.

Anyway, in the eye care field, ophthalmologists don't really deal with glasses or contacts, and they would not lose anything by saying that glasses are useless. Fact is, they work, and that's why they're around. I'll agree that sometimes they are erroneously prescribed, but that's a case of lazy or bad doctors, not a systematic deception to foist spectacles on the unsuspecting population. And again, the opticians, lens and frame manufacturers, who have the most to gain from their sale, have no access to the medical and optometric educational system.