Lasik Eyes Surgery - Whoops! Mary Pierce is a tennis player

Author

Whoops! Mary Pierce is a tennis player

Ragnar Suomi

2004-10-04, 7:07 am

Even I make mistakes. Mary Pierce is a tennis player. I never heard
of her before this week. The confusion was from a single article that
listed off a half dozen athletes.

That said, it is a fact that Mary herself called her LASIK experience
a "miracle"

Dr. Leukoma

2004-10-04, 11:09 am

Ragnar Suomi <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:00f2m0lvgafnn6cqnvi2g2qb8kanksmp0k@4ax.com:

> Even I make mistakes. Mary Pierce is a tennis player. I never heard
> of her before this week. The confusion was from a single article that
> listed off a half dozen athletes.
>
> That said, it is a fact that Mary herself called her LASIK experience
> a "miracle"
>

Sure she did, but she said that in 2000, right after her surgery. It looks
like her problems with night lights started later.

DrG

2004-10-04, 7:11 pm

In article <Xns95784AC911C7Adrgleukomacom@63.240.76.16>,
"Dr. Leukoma" <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:

> Sure she did, but she said that in 2000, right after her surgery. It looks
> like her problems with night lights started later.
>
> DrG

Dr G

With all due respect, and I'm certainly no pro-LASIK fanatic, but from
the links you yourself provided, it seems to me that it is the press
that has been making the connection between Pierce and night vision
problems. As you state in this message, the night problems started
later. Couldn't there be another cause?

--
"The truth lies somewhere between Ragnar and WFI"
~RT

Dr. Leukoma

2004-10-04, 7:11 pm

RT <RTMD24nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:Jsj8d.6427$nj.4414@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:

> In article <Xns95784AC911C7Adrgleukomacom@63.240.76.16>,
> "Dr. Leukoma" <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>
>
> Dr G
>
> With all due respect, and I'm certainly no pro-LASIK fanatic, but from
> the links you yourself provided, it seems to me that it is the press
> that has been making the connection between Pierce and night vision
> problems. As you state in this message, the night problems started
> later. Couldn't there be another cause?
>

With all due respect to you, too, RT, this recent story from Reuters
contains quotes from Ms. Pierce.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/defaul...1-7-2002_pg2_16

DrG

Dr. Leukoma

2004-10-04, 7:11 pm

RT <RTMD24nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:Jsj8d.6427$nj.4414@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:

> In article <Xns95784AC911C7Adrgleukomacom@63.240.76.16>,
> "Dr. Leukoma" <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>
>
> Dr G
>
> With all due respect, and I'm certainly no pro-LASIK fanatic, but from
> the links you yourself provided, it seems to me that it is the press
> that has been making the connection between Pierce and night vision
> problems. As you state in this message, the night problems started
> later. Couldn't there be another cause?
>

People do complain of night vision problems after LASIK, so why is the
story so surprising?

DrG

2004-10-04, 10:08 pm

In article <Xns9578AFAA145ECDrLeukoma@207.217.125.201>,
"Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wrote:

> People do complain of night vision problems after LASIK, so why is the
> story so surprising?

I'm not saying that it is--but linking her night vision problems and
LASIK is an unscientific assumption. I read the article. It's been the
past *month* she's been having problems seeing at night. She had LASIK
several years ago in 2000 and 2001.

The point is that this article is artfully worded to have the reader
draw a logical conclusion between her problems seeing at night and
LASIK. She could have a case of conjunctivitis, no? After all, she
hasn't seen her eye doctor yet

I thought (with all due respect) you were a little more scientifically
minded than to take a journalist's assumption at face value. that was my
point. I am in no way trying to belittle anyone who has faced night
vision challenges post-LASIK.

(However, even the esteemed Post -RS prophet/savior has fallen under
this spell with his wonderful adventures recounting his misdiagnosis of
a post-LASIK MS patient.)

But, for the sake of argument, is it possible to have LASIK induced
night vision problems show up 3 to 4 years after the procedure? How
could one know they are caused by LASIK with such a lapse of time in
between the procedure and the complaint? Has this been documented?
(Something new for me to worry about....)

--
"The truth lies somewhere between Ragnar and WFI"
~RT

Dr. Leukoma

2004-10-05, 2:08 am

RT <RTMD24nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:Kdn8d.6518$nj.5456@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:

> In article <Xns9578AFAA145ECDrLeukoma@207.217.125.201>,
> "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wrote:
>
>
> I'm not saying that it is--but linking her night vision problems and
> LASIK is an unscientific assumption. I read the article. It's been the
> past *month* she's been having problems seeing at night. She had LASIK
> several years ago in 2000 and 2001.
>
> The point is that this article is artfully worded to have the reader
> draw a logical conclusion between her problems seeing at night and
> LASIK. She could have a case of conjunctivitis, no? After all, she
> hasn't seen her eye doctor yet

2004-10-05, 2:08 am

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 01:59:06 GMT, RT <RTMD24nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In article <Xns9578AFAA145ECDrLeukoma@207.217.125.201>,
> "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wrote:
>
>
>I'm not saying that it is--but linking her night vision problems and
>LASIK is an unscientific assumption. I read the article. It's been the
>past *month* she's been having problems seeing at night. She had LASIK
>several years ago in 2000 and 2001.
>
>The point is that this article is artfully worded to have the reader
>draw a logical conclusion between her problems seeing at night and
>LASIK. She could have a case of conjunctivitis, no? After all, she
>hasn't seen her eye doctor yet

>
>I thought (with all due respect) you were a little more scientifically
>minded than to take a journalist's assumption at face value. that was my
>point. I am in no way trying to belittle anyone who has faced night
>vision challenges post-LASIK.
>
>(However, even the esteemed Post -RS prophet/savior has fallen under
>this spell with his wonderful adventures recounting his misdiagnosis of
>a post-LASIK MS patient.)
>
>But, for the sake of argument, is it possible to have LASIK induced
>night vision problems show up 3 to 4 years after the procedure? How
>could one know they are caused by LASIK with such a lapse of time in
>between the procedure and the complaint? Has this been documented?
>(Something new for me to worry about....)

What I don't understand is why people choose to ignore Mary's own
words that the procedure was a miracle for her and she is so happy
with it. Then she is out nearly an entire year due to a back injury
and fires her coach. She comes back and isn't playing as well.. gee I
wonder why! As for the night vision, she says she's only played one
night match in years. She could have worn some custom made contact
lenses to alleviate that night vision problem or used various eye
drops which shrink the pupil size. The more the pupil is dilated
(such as at night) the more problem there is going to be with
starbursts, glare, etc.

It really is interesting how even knowlegeable people are more
interested in posting vague, outdated, irrelevant accounts of
individual cases, yet they do little or nothing to suggest why a
problem occurs, some solutions for the problem, or just how much of a
problem the problem actually is.

Here's an analogy. On a recent TV show, they had a little girl who
had surgery on her earlobe. After the surgery, her earlobes did not
match and the operated on lobe had an irregular shape. I can imagine
someone having a fit that the surgery wasn't perfect. They would
ignore the fact that before surgery her one earlobe was the size and
color of a plum.

Back on Mary Pierce, did it occur to anybody that perhaps she might
not be playing as well after being out nearly a year with a back
injury and maybe blaminng her drop in ability on something else?

I agree with RT entirely that it is unscientific to make scientific
conclusions out of an unscientific article. And to do it repeatedly
is just irresponsible.

2004-10-05, 4:07 am

"Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wrote:
> http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/defaul...1-7-2002_pg2_16

However, the story while factual is totally based on conjecture,
and is extremely vague on her symptoms. Let's see what Mary
Pierce's doctor has to say about this. And what about all the
athletes who experience glare and are not recipients of lasik?
We should wait for something quantitative to come out rather
than blow something based on zero information completely out
of proportion.

Gary Anderson

2004-10-05, 7:07 am

The night vision problem story shouldn't be
surprising. It is the journalistic effort to
analyse the cause and effect. The unfortunate
aspect of all of this is there seems to be a
conclusion that Pierce's Lasik Surgery is a cause
of not winning some particular match. That is
probably an unfounded conclusion. (Notice that I
said unfounded, not untrue.)

Pierce was very uncomfortable with her contact
lenses when she played. Now she seems to be more
comfortable on the court. No more eyedrops every
10 minutes. No more tears when the court is
dusty. Is she seeing the ball well enough at
night? Who knows besides her? Remember, there
are people with 20/20 and no surgery who have
trouble seeing a tennis ball at night. The shadow
on the ball is completely different.

"Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9578AFAA145ECDrLeukoma@207.217.125.201...
> RT <RTMD24nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in
>
news:Jsj8d.6427$nj.4414@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:
>
<Xns95784AC911C7Adrgleukomacom@63.240.76.16>,[vbcol=seagreen]
right after her surgery. It[vbcol=seagreen]
started later.[vbcol=seagreen]
pro-LASIK fanatic, but from[vbcol=seagreen]
me that it is the press[vbcol=seagreen]
Pierce and night vision[vbcol=seagreen]
night problems started[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> People do complain of night vision problems
after LASIK, so why is the
> story so surprising?
>
> DrG

2004-10-05, 7:07 am

In article <Xns9578E7E9CDF34drgleukomacom@216.148.227.77>,
"Dr. Leukoma" <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:

> On closer inspection, it appears as if the Reuters story is from 2002.

Oops.
>
> Gee, RT, you got me there. Perhaps my high opinion of you was a little bit
> misplaced.

Ouch. It is my high opinion of you that is compelling me to have you do
a closer reading of this article which is designed to have the reader
draw the same conclusion. I"m not saying LASIK didn't cause any night
vision problems--LASIK may have. But to say definitely is conjecture.

>In 2000, Mary Pierce waxes enthusiastically about her LASIK,
> then two years later says she's having trouble with the glare from the
> overhead lights. Take your pick. In either case, she's the one doing the
> talking. The journalist is just reporting it.

No, she never says that LASIK is the cause in this article. Neither
does the journalist. However, the journalist puts that info next to the
Pierce's quotes so that the reader draws his/her own conclusion:

"I really couldnt 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.

> Yes, for the sake of argument, patients do report problems a year or more
> after the surgery. One cause is regression.

So, going back to the original thread topic, professional athletes
(indeed everyone) should be aware that regression is a possibility. She
was in her early 20s when she had the procedure done. I know my eyes
were still regressing during my 20s.

>However, there are too few
> reports from Mary, too far apart, to know exactly when she might have
> noticed the problem. At the time of her 2000 remarks - right after surgery
> - she might not have played a night match.

Exactly my point. Her night vision problems very well might be as a
result of LASIK, (although regression wouldn't qualify as a
complication, correct?). However, my playing devil's advocate here is
to point out how this particular article is written in such a way for
the reader to draw the conclusion that it is LASIK that is the cause of
her night problems, whereas if a close reading is done, no where are the
two events causally linked--they are only linked by implication.

I wonder if we can find her and get her to comment definitely instead of
all this conjecturing.

--
"The truth lies somewhere between Ragnar and WFI"
~RT

Dr. Leukoma

2004-10-05, 7:07 am

RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in news:l2c4m013g4buiqf22t7dsb1fsvvnl72l6c@4ax.com:

>
> I agree with RT entirely that it is unscientific to make scientific
> conclusions out of an unscientific article. And to do it repeatedly
> is just irresponsible.
>

Nobody is making any claims of scientific validity. There are no
evidentiary requirements in this group. An unhappy report has the same
evidentiary weight here as a happy report. Mary's comments about not being
able to play night matches hold the same weight as Tiger's endorsements.

DrG

Dr. Leukoma

2004-10-05, 7:07 am

Organization: Your Company
Message-ID: <Xns95794945042A9drgleukomacom@204.127.199.17>
User-Agent: Xnews/06.02.16
Lines: 22
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.0.251.90
X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net
X-Trace: attbi_s52 1096977716 24.0.251.90 (Tue, 05 Oct 2004 12:01:56 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 12:01:56 GMT
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 12:01:56 GMT
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.lasik-eyes:39543

r5 <r5ahhj@r5ahhj.bounceme.net> wrote in news:r5ahhj-
1ED456.03222005102004@newssvr30-ext.news.prodigy.com:

> "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wrote:
>
> However, the story while factual is totally based on conjecture,
> and is extremely vague on her symptoms. Let's see what Mary
> Pierce's doctor has to say about this. And what about all the
> athletes who experience glare and are not recipients of lasik?
> We should wait for something quantitative to come out rather
> than blow something based on zero information completely out
> of proportion.
>

For some reason, the nervous nellies on this board seem to want to blow a
negative comment way out of proportion. I didn't read where Mary said she
was unhappy with LASIK, just that she was unable to play at night because
of the lights. It's called "glare." Haven't you read your informed
consent agreement where such potential side effects were discussed?

DrG

Dr. Leukoma

2004-10-05, 11:09 am

"Gary Anderson" <xxx@nowhere.msft> wrote in
news:416287d3$0$15081$626a14ce@news.free.fr:

> The night vision problem story shouldn't be
> surprising. It is the journalistic effort to
> analyse the cause and effect. The unfortunate
> aspect of all of this is there seems to be a
> conclusion that Pierce's Lasik Surgery is a cause
> of not winning some particular match. That is
> probably an unfounded conclusion. (Notice that I
> said unfounded, not untrue.)
>
> Pierce was very uncomfortable with her contact
> lenses when she played. Now she seems to be more
> comfortable on the court. No more eyedrops every
> 10 minutes. No more tears when the court is
> dusty. Is she seeing the ball well enough at
> night? Who knows besides her? Remember, there
> are people with 20/20 and no surgery who have
> trouble seeing a tennis ball at night. The shadow
> on the ball is completely different.

At last we hear from somebody with a brain. In a previous thread I
mentioned the fact that Mary Pierce actually had a pretty good year this
year. It looks like she can still win matches if she doesn't play them
under the lights since having had LASIK. That's what I got out of her
comments.

Ignoring reality won't get you anywhere.

DrG

2004-10-06, 4:07 am

"Dr. Leukoma" <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
> For some reason, the nervous nellies on this board seem to want to blow a
> negative comment way out of proportion. I didn't read where Mary said she

So you are suggesting that the original article was off-topic
then? I would certainly agree that using this article in
promotion of an anti-lasik agenda is a strain on credibility.

Dr. Leukoma

2004-10-06, 7:09 am

r5 <r5ahhj@r5ahhj.bounceme.net> wrote in
news:r5ahhj-4F6EB9.03430806102004@newssvr11-ext.news.prodigy.com:

> "Dr. Leukoma" <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>
> So you are suggesting that the original article was off-topic
> then? I would certainly agree that using this article in
> promotion of an anti-lasik agenda is a strain on credibility.
>

Using an article to reinforce the position that some athletes have had
negative results from LASIK is promoting an anti-LASIK agenda?

Get real, shill.

DrG