|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > October 2004 > Should Professional Athletes have Lasik?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Should Professional Athletes have Lasik?
|
|
| GetOverit 2004-10-03, 10:16 pm |
| This board has been extremely helpful in reviewing many discussions on
the topic of eye surgery. I certainly appreciate the passion involved
with this board and feel many contributing authors have offered valid
information. With all the information out there its important to hear
both sides in order to form a strong opinion. This is why I pose this
question on this board.
My Question: "Should Professional Athletes have Lasik?"
With all the discussion on this board surrounded lasik for you an me I
have become more and more interested on the long term effects of all
these professional athletes using lasik to improve contact dependent
vision. Currently no studies exist and the impact of visual
impairments for you and I are without a doubt enhanced for athletes in
visual demanding sports? Night vision challenges and contrast
sensitivity have become the biggest challenges for lasik to overcome
for the average joe (pardon the pun). I do know wavefront is still
confronted with these challenges due to the inability to correct
higher order abberations. I draw un-proven conclusions that this is
going undiscused due to potential liability. Ultimately this would
effect younger athletes in college that will look for anything to
improve themselves or levereage there ability to compete at higher
levels in the near future. I know of a few professional athletes that
have gone back to contacts due to continued problems with regression,
night vision, contrast sensitivity as a result of lasik, but this is
after they have had at least one additional enhancement.
-Does anyone share these same concerns?
-Have you followed any athletes pre & post Lasik that have visual
demanding sports? especially where dynamic vision is required?
-TM
| |
| Ragnar Suomi 2004-10-03, 10:16 pm |
| Athletics covers quite a broad range of activities. How about
specifying a particular sport to better address any unique concerns?
Way back when, RK was first recommended only to those that needed to
be free of glasses or lenses folding, slipping, or falling out - such
as athletes.
In the past in this group the example of boxing has come up in regards
to lasik. Even in that case, lasik is not what they should be
worrying about. Lasik or not, a few shots to the eye are a good way
to have a detached retina. The pounding on the eyes probably doesn't
do the tear glands much good either.
On 30 Sep 2004 22:18:51 -0700, tomdos@gmail.com (GetOverit) wrote:
>This board has been extremely helpful in reviewing many discussions on
>the topic of eye surgery. I certainly appreciate the passion involved
>with this board and feel many contributing authors have offered valid
>information. With all the information out there its important to hear
>both sides in order to form a strong opinion. This is why I pose this
>question on this board.
>
>My Question: "Should Professional Athletes have Lasik?"
>With all the discussion on this board surrounded lasik for you an me I
>have become more and more interested on the long term effects of all
>these professional athletes using lasik to improve contact dependent
>vision. Currently no studies exist and the impact of visual
>impairments for you and I are without a doubt enhanced for athletes in
>visual demanding sports? Night vision challenges and contrast
>sensitivity have become the biggest challenges for lasik to overcome
>for the average joe (pardon the pun). I do know wavefront is still
>confronted with these challenges due to the inability to correct
>higher order abberations. I draw un-proven conclusions that this is
>going undiscused due to potential liability. Ultimately this would
>effect younger athletes in college that will look for anything to
>improve themselves or levereage there ability to compete at higher
>levels in the near future. I know of a few professional athletes that
>have gone back to contacts due to continued problems with regression,
>night vision, contrast sensitivity as a result of lasik, but this is
>after they have had at least one additional enhancement.
>
>-Does anyone share these same concerns?
>-Have you followed any athletes pre & post Lasik that have visual
>demanding sports? especially where dynamic vision is required?
>
>
>-TM
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-03, 10:16 pm |
| tomdos@gmail.com (GetOverit) wrote in
news:74d2ad27.0409302118.5cefe5a@posting.google.com:
> This board has been extremely helpful in reviewing many discussions on
> the topic of eye surgery. I certainly appreciate the passion involved
> with this board and feel many contributing authors have offered valid
> information. With all the information out there its important to hear
> both sides in order to form a strong opinion. This is why I pose this
> question on this board.
>
> My Question: "Should Professional Athletes have Lasik?"
> With all the discussion on this board surrounded lasik for you an me I
> have become more and more interested on the long term effects of all
> these professional athletes using lasik to improve contact dependent
> vision. Currently no studies exist and the impact of visual
> impairments for you and I are without a doubt enhanced for athletes in
> visual demanding sports? Night vision challenges and contrast
> sensitivity have become the biggest challenges for lasik to overcome
> for the average joe (pardon the pun). I do know wavefront is still
> confronted with these challenges due to the inability to correct
> higher order abberations. I draw un-proven conclusions that this is
> going undiscused due to potential liability. Ultimately this would
> effect younger athletes in college that will look for anything to
> improve themselves or levereage there ability to compete at higher
> levels in the near future. I know of a few professional athletes that
> have gone back to contacts due to continued problems with regression,
> night vision, contrast sensitivity as a result of lasik, but this is
> after they have had at least one additional enhancement.
>
> -Does anyone share these same concerns?
> -Have you followed any athletes pre & post Lasik that have visual
> demanding sports? especially where dynamic vision is required?
>
>
> -TM
>
I have come across a number of instances in which athletes have benefitted
greatly, while others have suffered as a result of LASIK. One of the most
highly visible positive examples is Tiger Woods. Tom Kite also comes to
mind. On the negative side of the ledger, I have heard of a couple of
tennis players as well as golfers who have had trouble. Mary Pierce found
it difficult to play competitively after LASIK. With the tennis players,
the chief problem seems to be glare from the lights.
On the other hand, the visual demands for other professional sports such as
football, basketball, and hockey are not so great. Baseball is a very
visually demanding sport.
DrG
| |
|
| On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 11:38:10 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>I have come across a number of instances in which athletes have benefitted
>greatly, while others have suffered as a result of LASIK. One of the most
>highly visible positive examples is Tiger Woods. Tom Kite also comes to
>mind. On the negative side of the ledger, I have heard of a couple of
>tennis players as well as golfers who have had trouble. Mary Pierce found
>it difficult to play competitively after LASIK. With the tennis players,
>the chief problem seems to be glare from the lights.
>
>On the other hand, the visual demands for other professional sports such as
>football, basketball, and hockey are not so great. Baseball is a very
>visually demanding sport.
>
>DrG
I guess you didn't see the Mary Pierce interview at
http://marypierce.8m.com/Articles/aftereye.htm
"It's exciting," Pierce said. "My eyes, it's amazing. Sometimes I
overrun the ball. I anticipate so quick now. I feel quicker. I'm
moving the same, it's just I can see the ball much quicker.
"I still have trouble sometimes at night with the lights. Sometimes my
left eye might be a little bit blurry. But overall that's normal. It's
just the greatest thing. It's like a miracle.
"I'm so happy I did it. I heard Tiger Woods did it, and after that he
won like six (golf) tournaments in a row."
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-03, 10:16 pm |
| Mike <cigto@aol.com> wrote in
news:1096637544.HVnhEu7U4hCx+Lzw18fIwA@teranews:
> On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 11:38:10 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
> <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>
>
> I guess you didn't see the Mary Pierce interview at
> http://marypierce.8m.com/Articles/aftereye.htm
>
> "It's exciting," Pierce said. "My eyes, it's amazing. Sometimes I
> overrun the ball. I anticipate so quick now. I feel quicker. I'm
> moving the same, it's just I can see the ball much quicker.
>
> "I still have trouble sometimes at night with the lights. Sometimes my
> left eye might be a little bit blurry. But overall that's normal. It's
> just the greatest thing. It's like a miracle.
>
> "I'm so happy I did it. I heard Tiger Woods did it, and after that he
> won like six (golf) tournaments in a row."
>
>
>
I think you need to dig a little deeper my friend. Just type "Mary Pierce
LASIK into the Google search engine and read all of the articles.
DrG
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-03, 10:16 pm |
| "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wrote in
news:Xns9575665B8953ADrLeukoma@207.217.125.201:
> Mike <cigto@aol.com> wrote in
> news:1096637544.HVnhEu7U4hCx+Lzw18fIwA@teranews:
>
>
> I think you need to dig a little deeper my friend. Just type "Mary
> Pierce LASIK into the Google search engine and read all of the
> articles.
>
> DrG
>
For example: http://www.wtaworld.com/archive/index.php/t-34492
DrG
| |
| DoctorMyEye 2004-10-03, 10:16 pm |
| One factor to consider is how dry or poor quality the athletes
environments are. I have heard that NFL Players who have had LASIK
tend to really like it, but they are often bothered in stadiums like
in Minnesota, where the forced-air suspended bubble ceiling sucks the
moisture from everyone's eyes.
tomdos@gmail.com (GetOverit) wrote in message news:<74d2ad27.0409302118.5cefe5a@posting.google.com>...
> This board has been extremely helpful in reviewing many discussions on
> the topic of eye surgery. I certainly appreciate the passion involved
> with this board and feel many contributing authors have offered valid
> information. With all the information out there its important to hear
> both sides in order to form a strong opinion. This is why I pose this
> question on this board.
>
> My Question: "Should Professional Athletes have Lasik?"
> With all the discussion on this board surrounded lasik for you an me I
> have become more and more interested on the long term effects of all
> these professional athletes using lasik to improve contact dependent
> vision. Currently no studies exist and the impact of visual
> impairments for you and I are without a doubt enhanced for athletes in
> visual demanding sports? Night vision challenges and contrast
> sensitivity have become the biggest challenges for lasik to overcome
> for the average joe (pardon the pun). I do know wavefront is still
> confronted with these challenges due to the inability to correct
> higher order abberations. I draw un-proven conclusions that this is
> going undiscused due to potential liability. Ultimately this would
> effect younger athletes in college that will look for anything to
> improve themselves or levereage there ability to compete at higher
> levels in the near future. I know of a few professional athletes that
> have gone back to contacts due to continued problems with regression,
> night vision, contrast sensitivity as a result of lasik, but this is
> after they have had at least one additional enhancement.
>
> -Does anyone share these same concerns?
> -Have you followed any athletes pre & post Lasik that have visual
> demanding sports? especially where dynamic vision is required?
>
>
> -TM
| |
| Ragnar Suomi 2004-10-03, 10:17 pm |
| On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 14:55:34 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com>
wrote:
>Mike <cigto@aol.com> wrote in
>news:1096637544.HVnhEu7U4hCx+Lzw18fIwA@teranews:
>
>
>I think you need to dig a little deeper my friend. Just type "Mary Pierce
>LASIK into the Google search engine and read all of the articles.
>
>DrG
I tried that Google search and it had the interview of Mary Pierce
herself in which she describes her lasik problems but says she is so
happy she had it done, it's like a miracle, etc.
The negative posts are all pathetic posts in chat rooms and whacko web
sites run by people like Hanson and Keller and their ilk.
The closest thing to a credible source for some negativity about
M.P.'s lasik are on Dr. Berke's website. And Dr. Berke is far from
credible. He's one of SE's whacko doctors. His website is probably
the best example of corrupt marketing practices in the eye care
industry. He blatantly promises "super-vision" via ortho-K. That is
the same type of marketing that got the early lasik marketers in so
much trouble. They stopped, he didn't. For anyone to imply that
they are going to get "super-vision" with Ortho-K is criminal -
literally. Ortho-K costs a fortune, and so far I have only heard of
one person who was pleased with it after a year of trying it.
Virtually all OK patients give up on it before even the first year is
up.
It would be nice if people would stop bashing LASIK. That is a
futile and irresponsible act. If someone knows of some REAL problem
out there (not some twisted heresay), they should explain the problem,
why it happened and try to give some reasons to avoid the same problem
and/or fix the problem. If some surgeon screwed up - name the
surgeon. Why should any patient have to be the guinea pig for a lousy
surgeon such as Dr. Rothman?
To avoid making this post a long-winded essay, I will just point out a
few assorted things that I have expounded on in the past. Select
your surgeon carefully. Your surgeon needs to have skill, time, and
caring for you to achieve your best results. If you go to a LASIK
mill, you are not going to get the best possible results. This is a
major point because LVI does more lasik and PRK procedures than any
other provider. That means that there are a whole lot of people going
to sub-standard providers across the country. Also, PRK is not bad,
but a patient needs to know why the doctor is doing that instead of
LASIK and what the differences are. At best, PRK could be said to be
"as good as" LASIK but takes longer to heal, but it's certainly not
better. It really should only be done if there is some complication
such as tiny eyes, thin corneas, a corneal defect or a few other rare
circumstances which make Lasik inappropriate. Personally, I think
that anybody who can't have Lasik should really try to stick with RGP
lenses before having PRK.
| |
| serebel 2004-10-03, 10:17 pm |
| doctor_my_eye@msn.com (DoctorMyEye) wrote in message news:<79e0f419.0410011203.65073e7a@posting.google.com>...
> One factor to consider is how dry or poor quality the athletes
> environments are. I have heard that NFL Players who have had LASIK
> tend to really like it, but they are often bothered in stadiums like
> in Minnesota, where the forced-air suspended bubble ceiling sucks the
> moisture from everyone's eyes.
>
>
Who cares if pro athletes have lasik? It's strictly a personal
decision. Even they can think for themselves.
SErebel
| |
| Wizkid 2004-10-03, 10:17 pm |
| The jury is still out on Tiger Woods and his result over time. We have
a Fellow here who is collecting pre-op and post-op data on college and
pro athletes that have had LASIK. He is focused on golf and baseball,
although he has data on a few outside these sports. The data on Woods
shows a significant fall off in the percentage of time he reaches the
green in two or three strokes (misjudging swing due to visual
signals?)and a fall off in the percentage of putts made under 20 feet
and 10 feet (misreading the break and/or distance?).
Players that you forgot to mention include Boog Powell (halos around
the baseball in night games), Troy Aiken (halos around the football in
night games), Scott Hoch, and Tommy Armour III. The latter nearly
missed the PGA cut after he had LASIK. He lost a significant amount of
contrast sensitivity leading to problems of depth perception. Armour
now wears rigid PMMA, specialty lenses to overcome his problem.
So, it appears that some do well, and some do not do well. There are
trade-offs. Anyone who undergoes the procedure should be aware of the
risks, both the type and incidence, however small. Mark McGwire, after
seriously looking into all types of refractive procedures, decided
that the risks were too great. And since there was no going back, he
stayed with contacts to the end of his career. I do not know if he has
any procedure since he retired.
WK
and "Dr. Leukoma" <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote in message news:<Xns95754530F9F3Edrgleukomacom@216.148.227.77>...
> tomdos@gmail.com (GetOverit) wrote in
> news:74d2ad27.0409302118.5cefe5a@posting.google.com:
>
>
> I have come across a number of instances in which athletes have benefitted
> greatly, while others have suffered as a result of LASIK. One of the most
> highly visible positive examples is Tiger Woods. Tom Kite also comes to
> mind. On the negative side of the ledger, I have heard of a couple of
> tennis players as well as golfers who have had trouble. Mary Pierce found
> it difficult to play competitively after LASIK. With the tennis players,
> the chief problem seems to be glare from the lights.
>
> On the other hand, the visual demands for other professional sports such as
> football, basketball, and hockey are not so great. Baseball is a very
> visually demanding sport.
>
> DrG
| |
| Ragnar Suomi 2004-10-03, 10:17 pm |
| On 1 Oct 2004 21:06:53 -0700, serebel@aol.com (serebel) wrote:
>doctor_my_eye@msn.com (DoctorMyEye) wrote in message news:<79e0f419.0410011203.65073e7a@posting.google.com>...
>
>
>Who cares if pro athletes have lasik? It's strictly a personal
>decision. Even they can think for themselves.
>
>
>SErebel
Can you imagine anyone boxing, wrestling, swimming, playing football
or rugby or soccer wearing glasses. Even when possible to wear them
(such as in soccer or football), the opposition would merely have to
knock off or break the glasses to "cripple" their foe. In outdoor
sports, contacts and rain don't get along together very well.
| |
| Ragnar Suomi 2004-10-03, 10:17 pm |
| I actually hate having to jump in message after message. First,
forget about trying to taint the Tiger Woods story. If it comes up
again, I will post his own video about his procedure here if
necessary. In short, Tiger was -11.0 before LASIK. After LASIK he
was 20/15. He did fantastic on the PGA tour following his LASIK.
Lately his game has fallen off. Don't dare blame that on LASIK. His
game has gone downhill due to firing his coach and getting married to
a blonde swedish barbie doll. I'm sure he's still working with his
balls and long shafts and working on getting in the hole.. but not so
much on the golf course anymore. He's got all the money he could
possibly spend and he's broken just about every golf record there is.
As for Mark McGwire.. forget about any LASIK problems.. worry about
his abuse of steroids. He should be wiped from the record books.
I'm not all that familiar with the other people you mention, however
it my memory is right, Troy Aikmen's problems are due to repeated
brain concussions from being sacked so often... and his lasik was done
in 1999.. 5 years ago! The procedure has improved a lot since then.
---See below to read an interesting post...
On 1 Oct 2004 21:39:10 -0700, gospa68@aol.com (Wizkid) wrote:
>The jury is still out on Tiger Woods and his result over time. We have
>a Fellow here who is collecting pre-op and post-op data on college and
>pro athletes that have had LASIK. He is focused on golf and baseball,
>although he has data on a few outside these sports. The data on Woods
>shows a significant fall off in the percentage of time he reaches the
>green in two or three strokes (misjudging swing due to visual
>signals?)and a fall off in the percentage of putts made under 20 feet
>and 10 feet (misreading the break and/or distance?).
>
>Players that you forgot to mention include Boog Powell (halos around
>the baseball in night games), Troy Aiken (halos around the football in
>night games), Scott Hoch, and Tommy Armour III. The latter nearly
>missed the PGA cut after he had LASIK. He lost a significant amount of
>contrast sensitivity leading to problems of depth perception. Armour
>now wears rigid PMMA, specialty lenses to overcome his problem.
>
>So, it appears that some do well, and some do not do well. There are
>trade-offs. Anyone who undergoes the procedure should be aware of the
>risks, both the type and incidence, however small. Mark McGwire, after
>seriously looking into all types of refractive procedures, decided
>that the risks were too great. And since there was no going back, he
>stayed with contacts to the end of his career. I do not know if he has
>any procedure since he retired.
>WK
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Speaker performs LASIK on top
tennis player after US Open
On September 14, 1999 Dr. Speaker helped Richard Krajicek, a top
ranked professional tennis player, achieve a life free of contact
lenses and glasses. During his stay in New York for the U.S. Open
Tennis Tournament, Richard Krajicek visited Laser & Corneal Surgery
Associates in hopes of achieving a better quality of life as well as a
better tennis game. Just a few days following the U.S. Open, Dr.
Speaker performed LASIK surgery on Richard with stunning results. The
following day his vision was 20/20 and at his most recent check up it
was 20/15!
As any sports enthusiast knows, wearing contact lenses or glasses
while trying to compete is not ideal. Sweat, allergies and dirt can
irritate your eyes, and having a lens "pop out" is not only an
inconvenience, it can affect your performance. In addition to Richard
Krajicek, Troy Aikman (football), Tom Kite (golf), Wade Boggs
(baseball), Tiger Woods (golf), are all professional athletes who have
recently had Laser Eye Surgery performed. Achieving perfect vision
through LASIK has helped many of them maintain a competitive edge.
Richard Krajicek, who is currently rated 6th in the 1999 ATP Tour
Rankings, most recently made it to the U.S. Open Quarter Finals.
During that match he set an all-time record for most aces in a Grand
Slam Tournament match with 49. He broke the old record (set by Goran
Ivanisevic with 46) by serving a 124 mile-per-hour ace in the fifth
set tie-breaker.
Richard, who resides in the Netherlands, recently called to let us
know how thrilled he is with his eyesight and said,
"I'm playing better tennis now than I've ever played in my life!"
| |
| DoctorMyEye 2004-10-03, 10:17 pm |
| Professional athletes are less likely to have the time or take the
effort to do research about the positives and negatives of LASIK.
Their lifelong potential to earn a living is based on their physical
skills. They need to be treated honestly and understand the facts
about halos, dry eyes and normal healing times even more than the
non-athlete needs to.
serebel@aol.com (serebel) wrote in message news:<6ddf3bb5.0410012006.54c3eed5@posting.google.com>...
> doctor_my_eye@msn.com (DoctorMyEye) wrote in message news:<79e0f419.0410011203.65073e7a@posting.google.com>...
>
>
> Who cares if pro athletes have lasik? It's strictly a personal
> decision. Even they can think for themselves.
>
>
> SErebel
| |
|
| In article <79e0f419.0410020516.3f0d27ad@posting.google.com>,
doctor_my_eye@msn.com (DoctorMyEye) wrote:
> They need to be treated honestly and understand the facts
> about halos, dry eyes and normal healing times even more than the
> non-athlete needs to.
Like the military should have better pre-op assessments than the general
population?
That's absurd. Everyone should have equal access to the pros and cons
of LASIK surgery and competent doctors. To put the concerns of
ridiculously overpaid Sports figures over, for example, the mother of
three who works as a part time receptionist smacks of classism and
bigotry. Shame on you. Everyone deserves and should expect an equal
level of medical care and concern from his/her doctor.
Is that how you run your practice? Do you treat some of your patients
more honestly than others?
--
"The truth lies somewhere between Ragnar and WFI"
~RT
| |
| Ragnar Suomi 2004-10-03, 10:17 pm |
| ????
Athlete's don't have the time?
I really don't think athlete's spend 8 hours a day, 5 days a week in a
gym. More like 2 hours a day. Besides that, they have several months
a year where they are "off". If anything, they have more time than
the average person. And just how much time does it take to learn all
they need to know? It doesn't take long.
Let's hope they don't stumble upon your twisted advice about halos,
etc. You have a gift for making mountains out of molehills.
Here's a related question that bothers me. Where are the surgeons of
these patients who come to you? The patients should be asking their
surgeon's questions before coming to you. And lets assume that some
bad surgeon is ignoring their patient's complaints. If that is the
case, you should be on the phone asking that surgeon why they are not
addressing their patient's problems.
Perhaps Glenn could provide some information about this, but I think
that it should be required that any primary care doctor (in this case
the surgeon) should be notified of his patients receiving subsequent
treatments on his work from other doctors.
On another side note, I think it's a good idea to get advice from
someone who has actually had the surgery they are giving advice for.
The same thing goes for contact lenses. I think any good eye doctor
should periodically try out various contact lenses (plano if they
require no correction) to see how they really work. There is no
substitute for first-hand experience. Here's some analogies: would
a woman likely get better gynecology advice from a male or female
doctor?; would a person living in Australia or a person who read a
book about Australia provide better information about Australia? OK..
enough rambling for this post.
On 2 Oct 2004 06:16:17 -0700, doctor_my_eye@msn.com (DoctorMyEye)
wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Professional athletes are less likely to have the time or take the
>effort to do research about the positives and negatives of LASIK.
>Their lifelong potential to earn a living is based on their physical
>skills. They need to be treated honestly and understand the facts
>about halos, dry eyes and normal healing times even more than the
>non-athlete needs to.
>
>
>
>
>
>serebel@aol.com (serebel) wrote in message news:<6ddf3bb5.0410012006.54c3eed5@posting.google.com>...
| |
| Ragnar Suomi 2004-10-03, 10:17 pm |
| On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 14:23:19 GMT, RT <RTMD24nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <79e0f419.0410020516.3f0d27ad@posting.google.com>,
> doctor_my_eye@msn.com (DoctorMyEye) wrote:
>
>
>Like the military should have better pre-op assessments than the general
>population?
>
>That's absurd. Everyone should have equal access to the pros and cons
>of LASIK surgery and competent doctors. To put the concerns of
>ridiculously overpaid Sports figures over, for example, the mother of
>three who works as a part time receptionist smacks of classism and
>bigotry. Shame on you. Everyone deserves and should expect an equal
>level of medical care and concern from his/her doctor.
>
>Is that how you run your practice? Do you treat some of your patients
>more honestly than others?
I caught a good point here that I missed.
You noted how Minarik is anxious to acquire pro-sports patients. That
is a classic marketing manuever used by all sorts of doctors. They
want patients with publically recognized names so they can use them in
their advertising. "Celebrities" get their asses kissed by doctors.
A good example of that is J.R. Larry Hagman. He got a donor liver
almost immediately when he needed it... instead of that liver going to
other suitable "nobody's" who had been waiting years for it. Same
thing happened with baseball legend Mickey Mantle. Both he and Larry
pickled their livers with a lifetime of boozing and both got new
livers without waiting ahead of other suitable receivers.
| |
| Wizkid 2004-10-03, 10:17 pm |
| As is usual, you have added nothing to this thread. I encourage you to
post the so-called video, and for balance, post also the interview
that Bob Costas had with Tiger one year after his LASIK. It aired on
HBO. In it, Tiger talked of the blurriness that he had, and how he had
to squint before he took his swing.
In addition, most of us know (you apparently don't) that the Snellen
Acuity Chart (20/20, 20/100, etc.)is a poor indicator of outcomes. It
measures only high contrast vision. Tiger's 20/15 vision means nothing
when one needs to consider contrast sensitivity (related to depth
perception). Firing his coach and the addition of his girlfriend may
be the source of his problem, but there is also reason to believe that
he is having visual problems related to LASIK. Many in the field
believe that Tiger would have been better off waiting for a phakic
IOL. Many surgeons are moving away from corrections as large as
Tiger's due to the long term problems.
Aikman's problems, as stated by Aikman himself, were a direct result
of his LASIK procedure, not concussions. Another who voiced similar
problems was Jennifer Capriati. And she certainly did not have
multiple concussions.
I do not disagree that some athletes had good outcomes and improved
performance. But to be fair, there are a number who did not. There are
trade-offs. And unfortunately, if you are a person who ends up with a
bad result and reduced performance, you have to live with it as it is
not going to be reversed.
WK
Ragnar Suomi <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<agrsl01pm75b8bcc5a437dof991enfjs08@4ax.com>...
> I actually hate having to jump in message after message. First,
> forget about trying to taint the Tiger Woods story. If it comes up
> again, I will post his own video about his procedure here if
> necessary. In short, Tiger was -11.0 before LASIK. After LASIK he
> was 20/15. He did fantastic on the PGA tour following his LASIK.
> Lately his game has fallen off. Don't dare blame that on LASIK. His
> game has gone downhill due to firing his coach and getting married to
> a blonde swedish barbie doll. I'm sure he's still working with his
> balls and long shafts and working on getting in the hole.. but not so
> much on the golf course anymore. He's got all the money he could
> possibly spend and he's broken just about every golf record there is.
>
> As for Mark McGwire.. forget about any LASIK problems.. worry about
> his abuse of steroids. He should be wiped from the record books.
>
> I'm not all that familiar with the other people you mention, however
> it my memory is right, Troy Aikmen's problems are due to repeated
> brain concussions from being sacked so often... and his lasik was done
> in 1999.. 5 years ago! The procedure has improved a lot since then.
>
> ---See below to read an interesting post...
>
>
>
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-03, 10:17 pm |
| I didn't bother reading past the first sentence of your blather, but if you
look at the link I provided, the discussion is about her problems that
occurred later.
Drg
Ragnar Suomi <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:2qerl0lsspllo8s54glcvjroj18jieg19n@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 14:55:34 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> I tried that Google search and it had the interview of Mary Pierce
> herself in which she describes her lasik problems but says she is so
> happy she had it done, it's like a miracle, etc.
> The negative posts are all pathetic posts in chat rooms and whacko web
> sites run by people like Hanson and Keller and their ilk.
> The closest thing to a credible source for some negativity about
> M.P.'s lasik are on Dr. Berke's website. And Dr. Berke is far from
> credible. He's one of SE's whacko doctors. His website is probably
> the best example of corrupt marketing practices in the eye care
> industry. He blatantly promises "super-vision" via ortho-K. That is
> the same type of marketing that got the early lasik marketers in so
> much trouble. They stopped, he didn't. For anyone to imply that
> they are going to get "super-vision" with Ortho-K is criminal -
> literally. Ortho-K costs a fortune, and so far I have only heard of
> one person who was pleased with it after a year of trying it.
> Virtually all OK patients give up on it before even the first year is
> up.
>
> It would be nice if people would stop bashing LASIK. That is a
> futile and irresponsible act. If someone knows of some REAL problem
> out there (not some twisted heresay), they should explain the problem,
> why it happened and try to give some reasons to avoid the same problem
> and/or fix the problem. If some surgeon screwed up - name the
> surgeon. Why should any patient have to be the guinea pig for a lousy
> surgeon such as Dr. Rothman?
> To avoid making this post a long-winded essay, I will just point out a
> few assorted things that I have expounded on in the past. Select
> your surgeon carefully. Your surgeon needs to have skill, time, and
> caring for you to achieve your best results. If you go to a LASIK
> mill, you are not going to get the best possible results. This is a
> major point because LVI does more lasik and PRK procedures than any
> other provider. That means that there are a whole lot of people going
> to sub-standard providers across the country. Also, PRK is not bad,
> but a patient needs to know why the doctor is doing that instead of
> LASIK and what the differences are. At best, PRK could be said to be
> "as good as" LASIK but takes longer to heal, but it's certainly not
> better. It really should only be done if there is some complication
> such as tiny eyes, thin corneas, a corneal defect or a few other rare
> circumstances which make Lasik inappropriate. Personally, I think
> that anybody who can't have Lasik should really try to stick with RGP
> lenses before having PRK.
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-03, 10:17 pm |
| Or better: Here is a quote from the newsgroup dated August 10, 2002, or two
years after the quote from Mary Pierce.
"The laser surgery is really giving Jennifer and Mary problems. And Mary
got it done 2 years ago . These players request not to play night matches
but tournament organizers still make them play at night . Last week, in San
Diego, Mary was complaining that she couldn't see the balls under the
lights so I guess Jenn has the same problem"
__________________
I am not bashing LASIK here, Ragnar, but just trying to answer the question
from the other poster as truthfully as possible, which is that some
athletes have benefitted - Tiger Woods - and others have suffered after
LASIK.
DrG
Ragnar Suomi <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:2qerl0lsspllo8s54glcvjroj18jieg19n@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 14:55:34 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> I tried that Google search and it had the interview of Mary Pierce
> herself in which she describes her lasik problems but says she is so
> happy she had it done, it's like a miracle, etc.
> The negative posts are all pathetic posts in chat rooms and whacko web
> sites run by people like Hanson and Keller and their ilk.
> The closest thing to a credible source for some negativity about
> M.P.'s lasik are on Dr. Berke's website. And Dr. Berke is far from
> credible. He's one of SE's whacko doctors. His website is probably
> the best example of corrupt marketing practices in the eye care
> industry. He blatantly promises "super-vision" via ortho-K. That is
> the same type of marketing that got the early lasik marketers in so
> much trouble. They stopped, he didn't. For anyone to imply that
> they are going to get "super-vision" with Ortho-K is criminal -
> literally. Ortho-K costs a fortune, and so far I have only heard of
> one person who was pleased with it after a year of trying it.
> Virtually all OK patients give up on it before even the first year is
> up.
>
> It would be nice if people would stop bashing LASIK. That is a
> futile and irresponsible act. If someone knows of some REAL problem
> out there (not some twisted heresay), they should explain the problem,
> why it happened and try to give some reasons to avoid the same problem
> and/or fix the problem. If some surgeon screwed up - name the
> surgeon. Why should any patient have to be the guinea pig for a lousy
> surgeon such as Dr. Rothman?
> To avoid making this post a long-winded essay, I will just point out a
> few assorted things that I have expounded on in the past. Select
> your surgeon carefully. Your surgeon needs to have skill, time, and
> caring for you to achieve your best results. If you go to a LASIK
> mill, you are not going to get the best possible results. This is a
> major point because LVI does more lasik and PRK procedures than any
> other provider. That means that there are a whole lot of people going
> to sub-standard providers across the country. Also, PRK is not bad,
> but a patient needs to know why the doctor is doing that instead of
> LASIK and what the differences are. At best, PRK could be said to be
> "as good as" LASIK but takes longer to heal, but it's certainly not
> better. It really should only be done if there is some complication
> such as tiny eyes, thin corneas, a corneal defect or a few other rare
> circumstances which make Lasik inappropriate. Personally, I think
> that anybody who can't have Lasik should really try to stick with RGP
> lenses before having PRK.
>
| |
| Ragnar Suomi 2004-10-04, 7:07 am |
| You can put away your thesaurus (blather indeed)
You chose not to re-post the link that you are referring to, so here
it is:
http://www.wtaworld.com/archive/index.php/t-34492
That link is nothing but some message board posts to some public
forum.
I don't put a whole lot of weight on the comments of "GoGoGirl" and
"DeeTheLick" whoever they are.
They are messages of the type of "I know a guy whose neigbor's aunt
read an article in which..."
I can't believe that there isn't some credible anti-lasik information
out there. Why you are making a fool of yourself by referencing that
link is a mystery.
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 23:24:06 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>I didn't bother reading past the first sentence of your blather, but if you
>look at the link I provided, the discussion is about her problems that
>occurred later.
>
>Drg
>
>Ragnar Suomi <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:2qerl0lsspllo8s54glcvjroj18jieg19n@4ax.com:
>
>
| |
| Ragnar Suomi 2004-10-04, 7:07 am |
| I will post the Tiger video shortly. I did do an extensive search
for all your anti-lasik reference below and came up with nothing.
Specifically, I'd like to see the transcript or video of that Costas
interview. It seems to me that you are just making this garbage
up... which is not unusual in this newsgroup.
On Aikman, you fail to note that his surgery was 5 years ago... and at
the time, his career was ending due to the concussions.
You are crazy to suggest phakic IOLs for Tiger... there are new
accommodating IOLs, but they are in their infancy.
His only viable alternative to LASIK was RGPs.
You people are really getting desperate. You just make up things to
support your twisted ideas. What you don't realize is that doing so
only destroys your credibility. Once a patient was put in front of
a computer and shown how the information they "heard" is nonsense,
then they reject all the negativity as being the rantings of
crackpots.
I almost feel like I am baiting the malcontents into making fools of
themselves. That is not my intent, but that is what is happening.
On 3 Oct 2004 11:46:19 -0700, gospa68@aol.com (Wizkid) wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>As is usual, you have added nothing to this thread. I encourage you to
>post the so-called video, and for balance, post also the interview
>that Bob Costas had with Tiger one year after his LASIK. It aired on
>HBO. In it, Tiger talked of the blurriness that he had, and how he had
>to squint before he took his swing.
>
>In addition, most of us know (you apparently don't) that the Snellen
>Acuity Chart (20/20, 20/100, etc.)is a poor indicator of outcomes. It
>measures only high contrast vision. Tiger's 20/15 vision means nothing
>when one needs to consider contrast sensitivity (related to depth
>perception). Firing his coach and the addition of his girlfriend may
>be the source of his problem, but there is also reason to believe that
>he is having visual problems related to LASIK. Many in the field
>believe that Tiger would have been better off waiting for a phakic
>IOL. Many surgeons are moving away from corrections as large as
>Tiger's due to the long term problems.
>
>Aikman's problems, as stated by Aikman himself, were a direct result
>of his LASIK procedure, not concussions. Another who voiced similar
>problems was Jennifer Capriati. And she certainly did not have
>multiple concussions.
>
>I do not disagree that some athletes had good outcomes and improved
>performance. But to be fair, there are a number who did not. There are
>trade-offs. And unfortunately, if you are a person who ends up with a
>bad result and reduced performance, you have to live with it as it is
>not going to be reversed.
>WK
>
>
> Ragnar Suomi <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<agrsl01pm75b8bcc5a437dof991enfjs08@4ax.com>...
| |
| Ragnar Suomi 2004-10-04, 7:07 am |
| On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 01:58:18 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>Or better: Here is a quote from the newsgroup dated August 10, 2002, or two
>years after the quote from Mary Pierce.
>
>
>"The laser surgery is really giving Jennifer and Mary problems. And Mary
>got it done 2 years ago . These players request not to play night matches
>but tournament organizers still make them play at night . Last week, in San
>Diego, Mary was complaining that she couldn't see the balls under the
>lights so I guess Jenn has the same problem"
>__________________
>
>I am not bashing LASIK here, Ragnar, but just trying to answer the question
>from the other poster as truthfully as possible, which is that some
>athletes have benefitted - Tiger Woods - and others have suffered after
>LASIK.
>
>DrG
>
>
In regards to Mary Pierce, I was not aware that they played golf at
night professionally. I know some people do golf at night, but not
professionally.
Patients should be told that especially in the first year following
LASIK that they will have some halos and starbursts when they look at
bright lights with a black background (such as with streetlights).
This effect can be greatly alleviated if not eliminated with special
contact lenses. It's not a very significant problem.
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-04, 7:07 am |
| Ragnar Suomi <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:chb2m0lrumj1pi7s88s2g1fkkuo4ef8c1a@4ax.com:
> In regards to Mary Pierce, I was not aware that they played golf at
> night professionally. I know some people do golf at night, but not
> professionally.
>
> Patients should be told that especially in the first year following
> LASIK that they will have some halos and starbursts when they look at
> bright lights with a black background (such as with streetlights).
> This effect can be greatly alleviated if not eliminated with special
> contact lenses. It's not a very significant problem.
>
This NG gets stranger by the day. The only Mary Pierce professional
athlete with whom I am familiar plays tennis, and not golf.
DrG
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-04, 7:07 am |
| Ragnar Suomi <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:2qerl0lsspllo8s54glcvjroj18jieg19n@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 14:55:34 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> I tried that Google search and it had the interview of Mary Pierce
> herself in which she describes her lasik problems but says she is so
> happy she had it done, it's like a miracle, etc.
> The negative posts are all pathetic posts in chat rooms and whacko web
> sites run by people like Hanson and Keller and their ilk.
> The closest thing to a credible source for some negativity about
> M.P.'s lasik are on Dr. Berke's website. And Dr. Berke is far from
> credible. He's one of SE's whacko doctors. His website is probably
> the best example of corrupt marketing practices in the eye care
> industry. He blatantly promises "super-vision" via ortho-K. That is
> the same type of marketing that got the early lasik marketers in so
> much trouble. They stopped, he didn't. For anyone to imply that
> they are going to get "super-vision" with Ortho-K is criminal -
> literally. Ortho-K costs a fortune, and so far I have only heard of
> one person who was pleased with it after a year of trying it.
> Virtually all OK patients give up on it before even the first year is
> up.
>
> It would be nice if people would stop bashing LASIK. That is a
> futile and irresponsible act. If someone knows of some REAL problem
> out there (not some twisted heresay), they should explain the problem,
> why it happened and try to give some reasons to avoid the same problem
> and/or fix the problem. If some surgeon screwed up - name the
> surgeon. Why should any patient have to be the guinea pig for a lousy
> surgeon such as Dr. Rothman?
> To avoid making this post a long-winded essay, I will just point out a
> few assorted things that I have expounded on in the past. Select
> your surgeon carefully. Your surgeon needs to have skill, time, and
> caring for you to achieve your best results. If you go to a LASIK
> mill, you are not going to get the best possible results. This is a
> major point because LVI does more lasik and PRK procedures than any
> other provider. That means that there are a whole lot of people going
> to sub-standard providers across the country. Also, PRK is not bad,
> but a patient needs to know why the doctor is doing that instead of
> LASIK and what the differences are. At best, PRK could be said to be
> "as good as" LASIK but takes longer to heal, but it's certainly not
> better. It really should only be done if there is some complication
> such as tiny eyes, thin corneas, a corneal defect or a few other rare
> circumstances which make Lasik inappropriate. Personally, I think
> that anybody who can't have Lasik should really try to stick with RGP
> lenses before having PRK.
>
Here is another link, by the way, which includes a quote from Mary:
http://www.geocities.com/marypierceonline/o/sd4.htm
DrG
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-04, 7:07 am |
| Ragnar Suomi <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:2qerl0lsspllo8s54glcvjroj18jieg19n@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 14:55:34 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> I tried that Google search and it had the interview of Mary Pierce
> herself in which she describes her lasik problems but says she is so
> happy she had it done, it's like a miracle, etc.
> The negative posts are all pathetic posts in chat rooms and whacko web
> sites run by people like Hanson and Keller and their ilk.
> The closest thing to a credible source for some negativity about
> M.P.'s lasik are on Dr. Berke's website. And Dr. Berke is far from
> credible. He's one of SE's whacko doctors. His website is probably
> the best example of corrupt marketing practices in the eye care
> industry. He blatantly promises "super-vision" via ortho-K. That is
> the same type of marketing that got the early lasik marketers in so
> much trouble. They stopped, he didn't. For anyone to imply that
> they are going to get "super-vision" with Ortho-K is criminal -
> literally. Ortho-K costs a fortune, and so far I have only heard of
> one person who was pleased with it after a year of trying it.
> Virtually all OK patients give up on it before even the first year is
> up.
>
> It would be nice if people would stop bashing LASIK. That is a
> futile and irresponsible act. If someone knows of some REAL problem
> out there (not some twisted heresay), they should explain the problem,
> why it happened and try to give some reasons to avoid the same problem
> and/or fix the problem. If some surgeon screwed up - name the
> surgeon. Why should any patient have to be the guinea pig for a lousy
> surgeon such as Dr. Rothman?
> To avoid making this post a long-winded essay, I will just point out a
> few assorted things that I have expounded on in the past. Select
> your surgeon carefully. Your surgeon needs to have skill, time, and
> caring for you to achieve your best results. If you go to a LASIK
> mill, you are not going to get the best possible results. This is a
> major point because LVI does more lasik and PRK procedures than any
> other provider. That means that there are a whole lot of people going
> to sub-standard providers across the country. Also, PRK is not bad,
> but a patient needs to know why the doctor is doing that instead of
> LASIK and what the differences are. At best, PRK could be said to be
> "as good as" LASIK but takes longer to heal, but it's certainly not
> better. It really should only be done if there is some complication
> such as tiny eyes, thin corneas, a corneal defect or a few other rare
> circumstances which make Lasik inappropriate. Personally, I think
> that anybody who can't have Lasik should really try to stick with RGP
> lenses before having PRK.
>
....and yet another link:
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/defaul...1-7-2002_pg2_16
DrG
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-04, 7:07 am |
| Ragnar Suomi <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:2qerl0lsspllo8s54glcvjroj18jieg19n@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 14:55:34 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> I tried that Google search and it had the interview of Mary Pierce
> herself in which she describes her lasik problems but says she is so
> happy she had it done, it's like a miracle, etc.
> The negative posts are all pathetic posts in chat rooms and whacko web
> sites run by people like Hanson and Keller and their ilk.
> The closest thing to a credible source for some negativity about
> M.P.'s lasik are on Dr. Berke's website. And Dr. Berke is far from
> credible. He's one of SE's whacko doctors. His website is probably
> the best example of corrupt marketing practices in the eye care
> industry. He blatantly promises "super-vision" via ortho-K. That is
> the same type of marketing that got the early lasik marketers in so
> much trouble. They stopped, he didn't. For anyone to imply that
> they are going to get "super-vision" with Ortho-K is criminal -
> literally. Ortho-K costs a fortune, and so far I have only heard of
> one person who was pleased with it after a year of trying it.
> Virtually all OK patients give up on it before even the first year is
> up.
>
> It would be nice if people would stop bashing LASIK. That is a
> futile and irresponsible act. If someone knows of some REAL problem
> out there (not some twisted heresay), they should explain the problem,
> why it happened and try to give some reasons to avoid the same problem
> and/or fix the problem. If some surgeon screwed up - name the
> surgeon. Why should any patient have to be the guinea pig for a lousy
> surgeon such as Dr. Rothman?
> To avoid making this post a long-winded essay, I will just point out a
> few assorted things that I have expounded on in the past. Select
> your surgeon carefully. Your surgeon needs to have skill, time, and
> caring for you to achieve your best results. If you go to a LASIK
> mill, you are not going to get the best possible results. This is a
> major point because LVI does more lasik and PRK procedures than any
> other provider. That means that there are a whole lot of people going
> to sub-standard providers across the country. Also, PRK is not bad,
> but a patient needs to know why the doctor is doing that instead of
> LASIK and what the differences are. At best, PRK could be said to be
> "as good as" LASIK but takes longer to heal, but it's certainly not
> better. It really should only be done if there is some complication
> such as tiny eyes, thin corneas, a corneal defect or a few other rare
> circumstances which make Lasik inappropriate. Personally, I think
> that anybody who can't have Lasik should really try to stick with RGP
> lenses before having PRK.
>
Oh, and I ran across this as well:
http://www.wtaworld.com/archive/index.php/t-34510
If you are going to make a point, better have your facts correct first.
DrG
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-04, 7:07 am |
| Ragnar Suomi <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:2qerl0lsspllo8s54glcvjroj18jieg19n@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 14:55:34 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> I tried that Google search and it had the interview of Mary Pierce
> herself in which she describes her lasik problems but says she is so
> happy she had it done, it's like a miracle, etc.
> The negative posts are all pathetic posts in chat rooms and whacko web
> sites run by people like Hanson and Keller and their ilk.
> The closest thing to a credible source for some negativity about
> M.P.'s lasik are on Dr. Berke's website. And Dr. Berke is far from
> credible. He's one of SE's whacko doctors. His website is probably
> the best example of corrupt marketing practices in the eye care
> industry. He blatantly promises "super-vision" via ortho-K. That is
> the same type of marketing that got the early lasik marketers in so
> much trouble. They stopped, he didn't. For anyone to imply that
> they are going to get "super-vision" with Ortho-K is criminal -
> literally. Ortho-K costs a fortune, and so far I have only heard of
> one person who was pleased with it after a year of trying it.
> Virtually all OK patients give up on it before even the first year is
> up.
>
> It would be nice if people would stop bashing LASIK. That is a
> futile and irresponsible act. If someone knows of some REAL problem
> out there (not some twisted heresay), they should explain the problem,
> why it happened and try to give some reasons to avoid the same problem
> and/or fix the problem. If some surgeon screwed up - name the
> surgeon. Why should any patient have to be the guinea pig for a lousy
> surgeon such as Dr. Rothman?
> To avoid making this post a long-winded essay, I will just point out a
> few assorted things that I have expounded on in the past. Select
> your surgeon carefully. Your surgeon needs to have skill, time, and
> caring for you to achieve your best results. If you go to a LASIK
> mill, you are not going to get the best possible results. This is a
> major point because LVI does more lasik and PRK procedures than any
> other provider. That means that there are a whole lot of people going
> to sub-standard providers across the country. Also, PRK is not bad,
> but a patient needs to know why the doctor is doing that instead of
> LASIK and what the differences are. At best, PRK could be said to be
> "as good as" LASIK but takes longer to heal, but it's certainly not
> better. It really should only be done if there is some complication
> such as tiny eyes, thin corneas, a corneal defect or a few other rare
> circumstances which make Lasik inappropriate. Personally, I think
> that anybody who can't have Lasik should really try to stick with RGP
> lenses before having PRK.
>
Sorry, just one more from today:
http://kfmb.com/community/adopt8/de...p?storyID=10320
DrG
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-04, 7:07 am |
| Ragnar Suomi <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:2qerl0lsspllo8s54glcvjroj18jieg19n@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 14:55:34 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> I tried that Google search and it had the interview of Mary Pierce
> herself in which she describes her lasik problems but says she is so
> happy she had it done, it's like a miracle, etc.
> The negative posts are all pathetic posts in chat rooms and whacko web
> sites run by people like Hanson and Keller and their ilk.
> The closest thing to a credible source for some negativity about
> M.P.'s lasik are on Dr. Berke's website. And Dr. Berke is far from
> credible. He's one of SE's whacko doctors. His website is probably
> the best example of corrupt marketing practices in the eye care
> industry. He blatantly promises "super-vision" via ortho-K. That is
> the same type of marketing that got the early lasik marketers in so
> much trouble. They stopped, he didn't. For anyone to imply that
> they are going to get "super-vision" with Ortho-K is criminal -
> literally. Ortho-K costs a fortune, and so far I have only heard of
> one person who was pleased with it after a year of trying it.
> Virtually all OK patients give up on it before even the first year is
> up.
>
> It would be nice if people would stop bashing LASIK. That is a
> futile and irresponsible act. If someone knows of some REAL problem
> out there (not some twisted heresay), they should explain the problem,
> why it happened and try to give some reasons to avoid the same problem
> and/or fix the problem. If some surgeon screwed up - name the
> surgeon. Why should any patient have to be the guinea pig for a lousy
> surgeon such as Dr. Rothman?
> To avoid making this post a long-winded essay, I will just point out a
> few assorted things that I have expounded on in the past. Select
> your surgeon carefully. Your surgeon needs to have skill, time, and
> caring for you to achieve your best results. If you go to a LASIK
> mill, you are not going to get the best possible results. This is a
> major point because LVI does more lasik and PRK procedures than any
> other provider. That means that there are a whole lot of people going
> to sub-standard providers across the country. Also, PRK is not bad,
> but a patient needs to know why the doctor is doing that instead of
> LASIK and what the differences are. At best, PRK could be said to be
> "as good as" LASIK but takes longer to heal, but it's certainly not
> better. It really should only be done if there is some complication
> such as tiny eyes, thin corneas, a corneal defect or a few other rare
> circumstances which make Lasik inappropriate. Personally, I think
> that anybody who can't have Lasik should really try to stick with RGP
> lenses before having PRK.
>
Sorry, just one more from today:
http://kfmb.com/community/adopt8/de...p?storyID=10320
DrG
| |
|
| On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 14:57:05 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com>
wrote:
>"Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wrote in
>news:Xns9575665B8953ADrLeukoma@207.217.125.201:
>
>
>For example: http://www.wtaworld.com/archive/index.php/t-34492
>
>
>
>DrG
Have you lost your mind? The negative posts you refer to are posts
made by other people regarding vague complaints that Mary Pierce made.
Yet you choose to ignore Mary's own quotes? I notice that two of the
sites that have declared Mary to have bad results are well-known
anti-lasik sites. Are you having a hard time getting patients? The
link you provided above is nothing more than an anonymous post that
somebody posted on a bulletin board.
How dare you try and twist things around. I guess you have never
heard of corneal ulcers or giant papillary conjunctivitis from contact
lenses.
I am repeating again what Mary herself had to say about her LASIK
procedure.
"It's exciting," Pierce said. "My eyes, it's amazing. Sometimes I
overrun the ball. I anticipate so quick now. I feel quicker. I'm
moving the same, it's just I can see the ball much quicker.
"I still have trouble sometimes at night with the lights. Sometimes
my left eye might be a little bit blurry. But overall that's normal.
It's just the greatest thing. It's like a miracle.
"I'm so happy I did it. I heard Tiger Woods did it, and after that he
won like six (golf) tournaments in a row."
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-04, 7:11 pm |
| Mike <cigto@aol.com> wrote in
news:1096898074.UnWn56cpIu3U3HBIreDT6A@teranews:
> On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 14:57:05 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Have you lost your mind? The negative posts you refer to are posts
> made by other people regarding vague complaints that Mary Pierce made.
> Yet you choose to ignore Mary's own quotes? I notice that two of the
> sites that have declared Mary to have bad results are well-known
> anti-lasik sites. Are you having a hard time getting patients? The
> link you provided above is nothing more than an anonymous post that
> somebody posted on a bulletin board.
> How dare you try and twist things around. I guess you have never
> heard of corneal ulcers or giant papillary conjunctivitis from contact
> lenses.
>
> I am repeating again what Mary herself had to say about her LASIK
> procedure.
>
> "It's exciting," Pierce said. "My eyes, it's amazing. Sometimes I
> overrun the ball. I anticipate so quick now. I feel quicker. I'm
> moving the same, it's just I can see the ball much quicker.
>
> "I still have trouble sometimes at night with the lights. Sometimes
> my left eye might be a little bit blurry. But overall that's normal.
> It's just the greatest thing. It's like a miracle.
>
> "I'm so happy I did it. I heard Tiger Woods did it, and after that he
> won like six (golf) tournaments in a row."
Sir:
From the Daily Times (UK), October 4, 2004
==========================================================================
Pierce was broken three times in the third set and lost the match when she
dumped a forehand into the net. The match began as the sun was going down
and, when darkness started to set in by the middle of the second set,
Pierce was having problems seeing under the lights.
“I really couldn’t pick up the ball,” said the 27-year-old Frenchwoman, who
had laser surgery on her eyes in 2000 and 2001 to correct near-sightedness
and astigmatism.
“I play much better when I can see and I had a really hard time judging the
ball at night. Plus, I was moving a little slow.”
Pierce has been having problems seeing at night over the last month. She
tried to see a doctor on Monday morning but was unable to get an
appointment.
She asked not to play at night but the tournament director still decided to
schedule her for the feature match. “I understand that’s its an honour to
play the night match but I haven’t played a night match in a couple of
years and I’m just not seeing well enough at night to play well,” said
Pierce, who is ranked 50th in the world.
===========================================================================
I mean, please don't shoot the messenger, Mike. What Mary said in 2000 and
2004 are completely different.
Go cool off, now.
DrG
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-04, 7:11 pm |
| Mike <cigto@aol.com> wrote in
news:1096898074.UnWn56cpIu3U3HBIreDT6A@teranews:
>
> Have you lost your mind? The negative posts you refer to are posts
> made by other people regarding vague complaints that Mary Pierce made.
> Yet you choose to ignore Mary's own quotes? I notice that two of the
> sites that have declared Mary to have bad results are well-known
> anti-lasik sites. Are you having a hard time getting patients? The
> link you provided above is nothing more than an anonymous post that
> somebody posted on a bulletin board.
> How dare you try and twist things around. I guess you have never
> heard of corneal ulcers or giant papillary conjunctivitis from contact
> lenses.
What do you mean about having a hard time getting patients? What does
answering a question about athletes who have had good results as well as
bad results with LASIK have to do with "getting patients"?
As a matter of fact, I just finished fitting a new post-LASIK patient with
contact lenses 10 minutes ago. She is a professional photographer. She
was giddy with delight in being able to see so well (with the contact
lenses).
If you want to continue to be mean and petty, I can literally flood this NG
with similar stories. However, out of respect to patients who have had
good results, I have chosen not to do so.
DrG
| |
| Bluesman 2004-10-04, 7:11 pm |
| "Dr. Leukoma" <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote in message news:<Xns95754530F9F3Edrgleukomacom@216.148.227.77>...
> tomdos@gmail.com (GetOverit) wrote in
> news:74d2ad27.0409302118.5cefe5a@posting.google.com:
>
>
> I have come across a number of instances in which athletes have benefitted
> greatly, while others have suffered as a result of LASIK. One of the most
> highly visible positive examples is Tiger Woods. Tom Kite also comes to
> mind. On the negative side of the ledger, I have heard of a couple of
> tennis players as well as golfers who have had trouble. Mary Pierce found
> it difficult to play competitively after LASIK. With the tennis players,
> the chief problem seems to be glare from the lights.
>
> On the other hand, the visual demands for other professional sports such as
> football, basketball, and hockey are not so great. Baseball is a very
> visually demanding sport.
>
> DrG
FWIW, I did LASIK to play baseball - it worked, even with the
correction only to +1.50, peripheral vision and clarity went way up,
especially at the plate.
Many years ago I was also a middelwieght fighter - there is no way I
would get in the ring after LASIK. no way.
Later,
Bluesman
| |
|
| On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 11:49:37 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>
>Here is another link, by the way, which includes a quote from Mary:
>http://www.geocities.com/marypierceonline/o/sd4.htm
>
>DrG
The link you provided above is the full story, the link you provide in
a followning message takes a snippet of the article above that omits
certain key information, namely the fact that she was sidelined for a
year with a back injury - whoops. Otherwise they are identical
articles.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/defaul...1-7-2002_pg2_16
Is the site you mention in your next message. It's from some Pakistan
newspaper. I really don't think we need to be referring to Pakistan
for regurgitated news.
Anyway, here is the FULL article for those who have trouble clicking
on the urls above: I have taken the liberty of emphasizing the
important comments, positive and negative, in the article.
Note that there is a mention of poor eye sight (which is not Mary's
words, but the conclusion of the writer of the article - so it's not
really relevant. Mary recognizes that she has some trouble with the
bright lights at night. She also mentions that she hasn't played a
night match in YEARS. Seems to me that one match every few years is
not very significant.
Now, for the first time, we see that Mary Pierce has not only dumped
her coach, but she was off the tour for most of last year with a back
injury!!! Gee, I wonder if being off the tour with a back injury for
nearly a year might affect her game. No.. couldn't be that.. it's
that damned Lasik!
This repeated referencing of 2nd and 3rd hand information which at its
root is actaully pro-lasik and is turned into anti-lasik garbage ...
is quite troubling.
===================================================
Former Aussie and French champ Mary Pierce is struggling in her
comeback. BOTHERED BY POOR EYE SIGHT and an aggressive opponent, she
was upset by German Great Arn, 3-6, 6-3, 6-4, in the first round here.
Pierce has been having PROBLEMS SEEING AT THE NIGHT OVER THE PAST
MONTH and attempted to see a doctor on Monday morning, but was unable
to get an appointment. She requested not to play at night but given
that she was the only popular unseeded player scheduled to play on
Monday, the tournament director decided to have her play the night
feature match anyway.
"I really couldn't pick up the ball," said Pierce, who had LASIK
surgery on her eyes in 2000 and 2001 to correct nearsightedness and
astigmatism. "I play much better when I can see and I had a really
hard time judging the ball at night. Plus, I was moving a little slow.
.... I understand that it's an honor to play the night match, but I
HAVEN'T PLAYED A NIGHT MATCH IN A COUPLE YEARS AND i'M JUST NOT SEEING
WELL ENOUGH AT NIGHT TO PLAY WELL."
PIERCE WAS OFF THE TOUR FOR MOST OF THE LAST YEAR WITH A BACK INJURY.
The 27-year-old –who reached a career high ranking of No. 3 in 2000 –
is disappointed with how her comeback is going. Currently ranked No.
50, the Frenchwoman needed a wild card to get into the Acura and has
only reached a quarterfinal once this year, at the French Open.
Moreover, she is moving at a glacial pace and those who recall her
glory years know that it was Pierce's ability to get herself into
tiptop shape that fueled her success. She's never been a great mover
to begin with and without her maximum speed, she has trouble hanging
in points. That's the case right now.
"Its going very slowly and it's frustrating," said Pierce, who just
PARTED WAYS WITH HER COACH. Bobby Banck, and has hired Renee Gomez on
a trial basis. "I'm not in the shape I need to be and I'm not
executing my shots. I'm moving at about 60 percent of what I once was.
I expected there to be a lot of hard work, but it's a lot harder than
I thought."
Pierce said that she hopes to regain her top-10 form by year's end but
said it may not happen. "Personally, I think I can, but maybe it's not
realistic," she said. "I just expected to come back and get my form
right back and it didn't' happen. Maybe I had the wrong mentality and
I should have been thinking that it would take more time, but by
nature I'm an impatient person and I'm really hard on myself."
| |
|
| Incidentally, RM is Ragnar Suomi. My own isp is having newsgroup
problems lately so I had to send from Easynews rather than Roadrunner.
For those who don't know it, Easynews is currently the best newsgroup
provider there is. Even the malcontents love it. Some of them signed
up with my pal at Easynews after trying to stir up trouble.
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-04, 7:11 pm |
| You must be having trouble with your reading vision. Regardless of which
newspaper printed the story, it is a recent newsfeed from Reuters. You
know who Reuters is, don't you?
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/defaul...1-7-2002_pg2_16
DrG
RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in news:r4c3m0h6rlg4dto0b50bvaa0bgt26nv5kh@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 11:49:37 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
> <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> The link you provided above is the full story, the link you provide in
> a followning message takes a snippet of the article above that omits
> certain key information, namely the fact that she was sidelined for a
> year with a back injury - whoops. Otherwise they are identical
> articles.
>
> http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/defaul...1-7-2002_pg2_16
> Is the site you mention in your next message. It's from some Pakistan
> newspaper. I really don't think we need to be referring to Pakistan
> for regurgitated news.
>
> Anyway, here is the FULL article for those who have trouble clicking
> on the urls above: I have taken the liberty of emphasizing the
> important comments, positive and negative, in the article.
> Note that there is a mention of poor eye sight (which is not Mary's
> words, but the conclusion of the writer of the article - so it's not
> really relevant. Mary recognizes that she has some trouble with the
> bright lights at night. She also mentions that she hasn't played a
> night match in YEARS. Seems to me that one match every few years is
> not very significant.
>
> Now, for the first time, we see that Mary Pierce has not only dumped
> her coach, but she was off the tour for most of last year with a back
> injury!!! Gee, I wonder if being off the tour with a back injury for
> nearly a year might affect her game. No.. couldn't be that.. it's
> that damned Lasik!
>
> This repeated referencing of 2nd and 3rd hand information which at its
> root is actaully pro-lasik and is turned into anti-lasik garbage ...
> is quite troubling.
>
>
> ===================================================
> Former Aussie and French champ Mary Pierce is struggling in her
> comeback. BOTHERED BY POOR EYE SIGHT and an aggressive opponent, she
> was upset by German Great Arn, 3-6, 6-3, 6-4, in the first round here.
> Pierce has been having PROBLEMS SEEING AT THE NIGHT OVER THE PAST
> MONTH and attempted to see a doctor on Monday morning, but was unable
> to get an appointment. She requested not to play at night but given
> that she was the only popular unseeded player scheduled to play on
> Monday, the tournament director decided to have her play the night
> feature match anyway.
>
> "I really couldn't pick up the ball," said Pierce, who had LASIK
> surgery on her eyes in 2000 and 2001 to correct nearsightedness and
> astigmatism. "I play much better when I can see and I had a really
> hard time judging the ball at night. Plus, I was moving a little slow.
> ... I understand that it's an honor to play the night match, but I
> HAVEN'T PLAYED A NIGHT MATCH IN A COUPLE YEARS AND i'M JUST NOT SEEING
> WELL ENOUGH AT NIGHT TO PLAY WELL."
>
> PIERCE WAS OFF THE TOUR FOR MOST OF THE LAST YEAR WITH A BACK INJURY.
> The 27-year-old –who reached a career high ranking of No. 3 in 2000 –
> is disappointed with how her comeback is going. Currently ranked No.
> 50, the Frenchwoman needed a wild card to get into the Acura and has
> only reached a quarterfinal once this year, at the French Open.
> Moreover, she is moving at a glacial pace and those who recall her
> glory years know that it was Pierce's ability to get herself into
> tiptop shape that fueled her success. She's never been a great mover
> to begin with and without her maximum speed, she has trouble hanging
> in points. That's the case right now.
>
> "Its going very slowly and it's frustrating," said Pierce, who just
> PARTED WAYS WITH HER COACH. Bobby Banck, and has hired Renee Gomez on
> a trial basis. "I'm not in the shape I need to be and I'm not
> executing my shots. I'm moving at about 60 percent of what I once was.
> I expected there to be a lot of hard work, but it's a lot harder than
> I thought."
>
> Pierce said that she hopes to regain her top-10 form by year's end but
> said it may not happen. "Personally, I think I can, but maybe it's not
> realistic," she said. "I just expected to come back and get my form
> right back and it didn't' happen. Maybe I had the wrong mentality and
> I should have been thinking that it would take more time, but by
> nature I'm an impatient person and I'm really hard on myself."
| |
|
| I don't know what has come over you. You seem to have lost your grip.
The dailytimes link from the Pakistan paper uses part of an article
from another link you provided. The other link you provided indicates
that Mary was off the tour for nearly a year due to a back injury and
that she fired her coach. The third link you posted has absolutely
zero to do with Mary Pierce.
Are you trying to beat Keller's record of being wrong the most times
in one day?
Seriously though, you seem to have altered your entire perspective
since learning of that suicide. It looks to me like you are trying to
blame LASIK for the suicide when obviously LASIK was not the reason.
Incidentally, supposedly the guy that committed suicide was a
physician? I should hope that a physician was more mentally stable
than that.
You can bet that Hanson and Keller are archiving your posts of the
past few days for eternity and will dredge them up to attack you in
the future.
On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 22:01:32 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com>
wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>You must be having trouble with your reading vision. Regardless of which
>newspaper printed the story, it is a recent newsfeed from Reuters. You
>know who Reuters is, don't you?
>
>http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/defaul...1-7-2002_pg2_16
>
>DrG
>
>
>RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in news:r4c3m0h6rlg4dto0b50bvaa0bgt26nv5kh@4ax.com:
>
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-05, 2:08 am |
| What's it to ya? Somebody asks a question and I provided a reasonable
answer from the public statements.
You know that LASIK isn't perfect, and so do most thinking people.
DrG
RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:s204m0h5vd1sioqrjh5fv7tldah3vb7ml1@4ax.com:
> I don't know what has come over you. You seem to have lost your grip.
> The dailytimes link from the Pakistan paper uses part of an article
> from another link you provided. The other link you provided indicates
> that Mary was off the tour for nearly a year due to a back injury and
> that she fired her coach. The third link you posted has absolutely
> zero to do with Mary Pierce.
>
> Are you trying to beat Keller's record of being wrong the most times
> in one day?
>
> Seriously though, you seem to have altered your entire perspective
> since learning of that suicide. It looks to me like you are trying to
> blame LASIK for the suicide when obviously LASIK was not the reason.
> Incidentally, supposedly the guy that committed suicide was a
> physician? I should hope that a physician was more mentally stable
> than that.
>
> You can bet that Hanson and Keller are archiving your posts of the
> past few days for eternity and will dredge them up to attack you in
> the future.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 22:01:32 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com>
> wrote:
>
>
| |
|
| The answer that you provided was not at all reasonable. It was
vintange malcontent nonsense and you know it.
Ignoring the back injury that kept her sidelined for nearly a year and
dwelling on one night match she had is just not right.
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 03:39:55 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>What's it to ya? Somebody asks a question and I provided a reasonable
>answer from the public statements.
>
>You know that LASIK isn't perfect, and so do most thinking people.
>
>DrG
>
>
>RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:s204m0h5vd1sioqrjh5fv7tldah3vb7ml1@4ax.com:
>
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-05, 7:07 am |
| RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in news:mcd4m0tfa0r7fm7v8i286pk4qr94ojf3mq@4ax.com:
> The answer that you provided was not at all reasonable. It was
> vintange malcontent nonsense and you know it.
> Ignoring the back injury that kept her sidelined for nearly a year and
> dwelling on one night match she had is just not right.
It's as reasonable and valid as any of your comments. What I don't
understand is your irrational reaction.
DrG
>
>
> On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 03:39:55 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
> <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>
>
>
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-05, 11:09 am |
| Here is another article from 2001 in which it is stated that she had an eye
problem and underwent surgery after returning from Australia. Gee, what
kind of eye problem involves surgery after LASIK?
DrG
"Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wrote in
news:Xns9578AE98C4B94DrLeukoma@207.217.125.201:
> You must be having trouble with your reading vision. Regardless of
> which newspaper printed the story, it is a recent newsfeed from
> Reuters. You know who Reuters is, don't you?
>
> http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/defaul...1-7-2002_pg2_16
>
> DrG
>
>
> RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:r4c3m0h6rlg4dto0b50bvaa0bgt26nv5kh@4ax.com:
>
>
>
| |
|
|
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-05, 11:09 am |
| Mike <cigto@aol.com> wrote in
news:1096983557.SV2nk+fmOI48NktvDNWTKw@teranews:
>
> Your nothing but another whore trying to cash in on scaring post-LASIK
> patients. Today you posted three URL's to look up Mary Pierce. The
> first two URL's you posted are the exact same article carried by two
> different websites, one of which is a site in Pakistan.
> http://www.wtaworld.com/archive/index.php/t-34510
> http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/defaul...1-7-2002_pg2_16
>
> The third URL you gave doesn't have one word about Mary Pierce.
> http://kfmb.com/community/adopt8/de...p?storyID=10320
>
> You are entirely self serving. If I'm mean and petty you are going to
> flood this newsgroup with similar stories? Don't bother, you have
> shown your true self.
>
How am I self-serving? I don't advertise here. I don't post links to my
website like others do. To my knowledge, I haven't gotten a single
referral from this NG. So, where do you get off calling me self-serving?
Also, show me the evidence that suggests I am trying to scare post-LASIK
patients. If anything, I have taken deliberate pains not to do so. I
simply answered a question from a poster. Sorry if you don't agree with
the facts.
Posting articles to support one's position in a NG is not self-serving.
The articles I posted simply underscored what I said, which was that some
athletes have not benefitted from LASIK, and one should consider the
particular sport before considering LASIK.
Get a grip, man. It is you who attacked me.
DrG
| |
|
| Even from the content of your own references the answer to the
question of should professional athletes have Lasik would be a YES.
You characterized them as being NO though.
You don't need any help making a fool of yourself. You accomplished
that all on your own.
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 13:55:51 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com>
wrote:
>Mike <cigto@aol.com> wrote in
>news:1096983557.SV2nk+fmOI48NktvDNWTKw@teranews:
>
>
>How am I self-serving? I don't advertise here. I don't post links to my
>website like others do. To my knowledge, I haven't gotten a single
>referral from this NG. So, where do you get off calling me self-serving?
>Also, show me the evidence that suggests I am trying to scare post-LASIK
>patients. If anything, I have taken deliberate pains not to do so. I
>simply answered a question from a poster. Sorry if you don't agree with
>the facts.
>
>Posting articles to support one's position in a NG is not self-serving.
>The articles I posted simply underscored what I said, which was that some
>athletes have not benefitted from LASIK, and one should consider the
>particular sport before considering LASIK.
>
>Get a grip, man. It is you who attacked me.
>
>DrG
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-05, 11:09 am |
| Mike <cigto@aol.com> wrote in
news:1096989925.YWNC5CEsGvuy6PSPJKbM9A@teranews:
> Even from the content of your own references the answer to the
> question of should professional athletes have Lasik would be a YES.
> You characterized them as being NO though.
> You don't need any help making a fool of yourself. You accomplished
> that all on your own.
I think you've gotten the "fool" thing backwards, Mike. You may think that
every professional athlete should have LASIK, but I don't. That's a
disagreement of opinion. Sorry if I hurt your feelings. By the way, where
did I answer "NO"? Come on. Put up or shut up.
Cheers.
DrG
>
> On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 13:55:51 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
| |
| Wizkid 2004-10-05, 7:10 pm |
| Thanks for the info on Mary Pierce. I passed it along to our fellow
who is tracking pre- and post-LASIK performance of athletes who have
had LASIK. He missed her somehow. If anyone else knows of athletes who
have had LASIK, let me know and I will pass the names along to him for
inclusion in his research.
Thanks, WK
|
| |
|
|