|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > October 2004 > Ragnar's posts beyond the bounds
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 |
Ragnar's posts beyond the bounds
|
|
|
| Ragnar
Get a grip. Your posts recently have been cruel and beyond the bounds
of common decency.
Please go ahead--write your nasty vile responses aimed at hurting the
poster (as you used to with Sandy--in this case Dr. G). Just DON'T POST
them, okay?
Important side note: Just because Ragnar or RM (or whoever he's posting
as) says he agrees with me on a certain point, doesn't mean I agree with
him, okay? Taking issue with what people write publicly on this board
and arguing intelligently about LASIK is one thing, but posts that take
aim at the person and are designed to injure them emotionally are
completely unacceptable. I don't condone them and I don't agree, no
matter who it is.
Also, just so everyone knows, I'm not into gossiping privately off list
about other people on this NG.
--
"The truth lies somewhere between Ragnar and WFI"
~RT
| |
| Ragnar Suomi 2004-10-06, 7:06 pm |
| RM is me. The roadrunner account has not been picking up headers
properly for weeks. The roadrunner server goes days without picking
up any new headers, then I get a deluge of dozens of them. That is
why the 2 accounts.
I don't recall any nasty or vile responses. Which responses did you
have in mind? I think its more of a case of the truth hurts the
most. People hate to be shown to be wrong.
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 14:40:07 GMT, RT <RTMD24nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Ragnar
>
>Get a grip. Your posts recently have been cruel and beyond the bounds
>of common decency.
>
>Please go ahead--write your nasty vile responses aimed at hurting the
>poster (as you used to with Sandy--in this case Dr. G). Just DON'T POST
>them, okay?
>
>Important side note: Just because Ragnar or RM (or whoever he's posting
>as) says he agrees with me on a certain point, doesn't mean I agree with
>him, okay? Taking issue with what people write publicly on this board
>and arguing intelligently about LASIK is one thing, but posts that take
>aim at the person and are designed to injure them emotionally are
>completely unacceptable. I don't condone them and I don't agree, no
>matter who it is.
>
>Also, just so everyone knows, I'm not into gossiping privately off list
>about other people on this NG.
| |
|
| In article <r309m09j5sjnpo6qv6e36890gdil56j87k@4ax.com>,
Ragnar Suomi <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote:
> RM is me. The roadrunner account has not been picking up headers
> properly for weeks. The roadrunner server goes days without picking
> up any new headers, then I get a deluge of dozens of them. That is
> why the 2 accounts.
>
> I don't recall any nasty or vile responses. Which responses did you
> have in mind? I think its more of a case of the truth hurts the
> most. People hate to be shown to be wrong.
I think your remarks to DrG accusing him causing the patient's suicide
was lower than low. That's what sparked my outburst. I know you are
Ragnar and RM. I suspect you are "Mike" too.
"Blah, blah."
--
"The truth lies somewhere between Ragnar and WFI"
~RT
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-10-06, 10:06 pm |
|
>I think your remarks to DrG accusing him causing the patient's suicide
>was lower than low.
Whoa! I missed that.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
|
| In article <ldb9m0ddrsj6t96jb6qur8jli43j81dqei@4ax.com>,
Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:
>
> Whoa! I missed that.
>
> Glenn Hagele
> Executive Director
> Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
>
> Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
>
> http://www.USAEyes.org
> http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
>
> I am not a doctor.
Here's one:
"And your Phyllis Knapp is still complaining after your treatments. So
much for your treatments.
I would also suggest that the next time you have a suicidal person who
comes to you, take off your blinders and see the real problems and
refer the guy to a qualified psychiatrist. It's obvious that his
eyes were only a minor part of his depression.
Either that or make a deal with a florist to provide flowers for more
funerals."
Here's another one--the one that prompted me to write something:
"So true. One of the 3 articles he posted didn't even have one word in
it about Mary Pierce. Go figure.
It would be nice to have at least one real eye doctor participate in
this group.
It seems to give great joy to the malcontents whenever there is even
the slightest shred of an individual person having a problem with
their eyes.
Also notice that these so-called experts like to point out problems,
yet they make no attempt whatsoever to point out a solution to the
problems. No wonder that one guy killed himself. A glimmer of hope
about his vision improving might have made the difference between him
giving up and waiting awhile for things in his life to change.
I don't suppose these experts ever heard of people going blind from
macular degeneration, glaucoma, cataracts, diabetes, etc. Vision loss
alone is no reason to cash in one's chips.
A doctor who interferes with a patient's healing process and feeds
them tales of gloom and doom so they can acquire them as a
"rehabilitation" patient - should not be a doctor at all. They should
retire from practice and go find some other line of work."
--
"The truth lies somewhere between Ragnar and WFI"
~RT
| |
|
| Thanks for pointing out the messages that you felt went too far, RT.
The various statements, while true, are very blunt. Judging by the
amount of pandering and revisionist posts that followed the blunt
messages, they did get the message through. You might want to look
back through recent messages and see how someone was threatening to
flood this newsgroup with their edittied, biased garbage. We have
been through that before with the floods of spam. It needs to be
nipped in the bud.
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 03:05:15 GMT, RT <RTMD24nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <ldb9m0ddrsj6t96jb6qur8jli43j81dqei@4ax.com>,
> Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:
>
>
>Here's one:
>
>"And your Phyllis Knapp is still complaining after your treatments. So
>much for your treatments.
>
>I would also suggest that the next time you have a suicidal person who
>comes to you, take off your blinders and see the real problems and
>refer the guy to a qualified psychiatrist. It's obvious that his
>eyes were only a minor part of his depression.
>
>Either that or make a deal with a florist to provide flowers for more
>funerals."
>
>Here's another one--the one that prompted me to write something:
>
>"So true. One of the 3 articles he posted didn't even have one word in
>it about Mary Pierce. Go figure.
>
>It would be nice to have at least one real eye doctor participate in
>this group.
>
>It seems to give great joy to the malcontents whenever there is even
>the slightest shred of an individual person having a problem with
>their eyes.
>Also notice that these so-called experts like to point out problems,
>yet they make no attempt whatsoever to point out a solution to the
>problems. No wonder that one guy killed himself. A glimmer of hope
>about his vision improving might have made the difference between him
>giving up and waiting awhile for things in his life to change.
>
>I don't suppose these experts ever heard of people going blind from
>macular degeneration, glaucoma, cataracts, diabetes, etc. Vision loss
>alone is no reason to cash in one's chips.
>
>A doctor who interferes with a patient's healing process and feeds
>them tales of gloom and doom so they can acquire them as a
>"rehabilitation" patient - should not be a doctor at all. They should
>retire from practice and go find some other line of work."
| |
|
| In article <v4m9m0ldac4ifus42avi19smu4sj01h7ie@4ax.com>,
RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thanks for pointing out the messages that you felt went too far, RT.
> The various statements, while true, are very blunt. Judging by the
> amount of pandering and revisionist posts that followed the blunt
> messages, they did get the message through. You might want to look
> back through recent messages and see how someone was threatening to
> flood this newsgroup with their edittied, biased garbage. We have
> been through that before with the floods of spam. It needs to be
> nipped in the bud.
There's a big difference between posting "edited bias garbage" and
attacking someone's person with the intent to hurt them emotionally.
Everything on this NG is "edited bias." Just because you choose to
think it is "garbage" is no excuse for passing the boundaries of common
decency.
--
"The truth lies somewhere between Ragnar and WFI"
~RT
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-07, 11:09 am |
| RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:v4m9m0ldac4ifus42avi19smu4sj01h7ie@4ax.com:
> Thanks for pointing out the messages that you felt went too far, RT.
> The various statements, while true, are very blunt. Judging by the
> amount of pandering and revisionist posts that followed the blunt
> messages, they did get the message through. You might want to look
> back through recent messages and see how someone was threatening to
> flood this newsgroup with their edittied, biased garbage. We have
> been through that before with the floods of spam. It needs to be
> nipped in the bud.
The above speaks to monumental arrogance and inflated sense of self. You
have accomplished nothing but making yourself a very pitiful and reviled
figure who will stoop to any tactic to besmirch the integrity of another
person. I've seen your kind before.
Ragnar, what you wrote (see below) goes way beyond the bounds of decency
and civil discourse. As for flooding this NG with edited, biased garbage,
well you would seem to be the expert. One of your hot buttons seems to be
anything that threatens to put LASIK in a bad light, even something so
minor as a throwaway comment about a professional athlete who has a
complication (using Glenn's criteria), and this even after two successes
were mentioned in the same paragraph.
Well, I got news for you, this is not a pro-LASIK NG anymore than an anti-
LASIK NG, and comments pro- and con- are appropriate here. It should be no
revelation that I am not, nor ever have been a proponent of LASIK, nor can
I even contemplate ever having it done on my own eyes. Neither do I have
an agenda to put LASIK surgeons out of business. With me, it is a moot
point. Unfortunately, it is the lot of the optometrist to have to fix the
vision of patients who wind up on the scrap heap of refractive surgery, and
I am not going to pretend that such people do not exist, and I will not
sanitize my comments just to please some internet crackpot(s). Moreover, I
have earned the right to comment, perhaps more than you. A number of
people are surely interested in what I have to say, because they pay me to
say it, and some pay to hear it. Garbage, indeed.
DrG
>
> On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 03:05:15 GMT, RT <RTMD24nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
| |
|
| If you want to be treated like a doctor, then act like a doctor. Not
half the time, all the time. You can start by changing your name from
the ficticious Dr. Leukoma to Dr. Gemoules. Doctors are not
ficticious. Likewise, if someone is not a doctor, there really isn't
any point in using a real name.
One thing I have yet to see in this newsgroup is any explanation of
why the surgeon isn't taking care of any post-lasik complications
themselves - for free - rather than the patient going to an
optometrist. If the ophthalmologist's solution was to get custom made
contact lenses for the patient, then the ophthalmologist should refer
the patient to an optometrist. I would like to know why a patient
would bypass their surgeon.
While on the topic. The overwhelming number of doctors on the SE
website are optometrists. That is interesting. A site dedicated to
surgery run by doctors who do not perform surgery. There is an
inherent conflict of interest there.
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 12:32:32 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:v4m9m0ldac4ifus42avi19smu4sj01h7ie@4ax.com:
>
>
>The above speaks to monumental arrogance and inflated sense of self. You
>have accomplished nothing but making yourself a very pitiful and reviled
>figure who will stoop to any tactic to besmirch the integrity of another
>person. I've seen your kind before.
>
>Ragnar, what you wrote (see below) goes way beyond the bounds of decency
>and civil discourse. As for flooding this NG with edited, biased garbage,
>well you would seem to be the expert. One of your hot buttons seems to be
>anything that threatens to put LASIK in a bad light, even something so
>minor as a throwaway comment about a professional athlete who has a
>complication (using Glenn's criteria), and this even after two successes
>were mentioned in the same paragraph.
>
>Well, I got news for you, this is not a pro-LASIK NG anymore than an anti-
>LASIK NG, and comments pro- and con- are appropriate here. It should be no
>revelation that I am not, nor ever have been a proponent of LASIK, nor can
>I even contemplate ever having it done on my own eyes. Neither do I have
>an agenda to put LASIK surgeons out of business. With me, it is a moot
>point. Unfortunately, it is the lot of the optometrist to have to fix the
>vision of patients who wind up on the scrap heap of refractive surgery, and
>I am not going to pretend that such people do not exist, and I will not
>sanitize my comments just to please some internet crackpot(s). Moreover, I
>have earned the right to comment, perhaps more than you. A number of
>people are surely interested in what I have to say, because they pay me to
>say it, and some pay to hear it. Garbage, indeed.
>
>
>DrG
>
| |
|
| I don't necessarily disagree with you, but when someone implies that
LASIK was the cause of someone commiting suicide, someone needs to
have a reality check.
Also, when somebody repeadly blames LASIK for a drop in rankings in
their tennis game... and not once mentions or even acknowleges that
the player (Mary Pierce) had not played in nearly a year due to a back
injury and also fired her coach, then there is something suspicious
going on.
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 11:28:34 GMT, RT <RTMD24nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <v4m9m0ldac4ifus42avi19smu4sj01h7ie@4ax.com>,
> RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>There's a big difference between posting "edited bias garbage" and
>attacking someone's person with the intent to hurt them emotionally.
>Everything on this NG is "edited bias." Just because you choose to
>think it is "garbage" is no excuse for passing the boundaries of common
>decency.
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-07, 7:11 pm |
| RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:u33bm09h3lkon1tjv1oqncq0ojt3df8su9@4ax.com:
> If you want to be treated like a doctor, then act like a doctor. Not
> half the time, all the time. You can start by changing your name from
> the ficticious Dr. Leukoma to Dr. Gemoules. Doctors are not
> ficticious. Likewise, if someone is not a doctor, there really isn't
> any point in using a real name.
Those who matter know who I am, and you don't really matter. Also, getting
a lecture from you on how to deport oneself professionally is quite
laughable.
>
> One thing I have yet to see in this newsgroup is any explanation of
> why the surgeon isn't taking care of any post-lasik complications
> themselves - for free - rather than the patient going to an
> optometrist. If the ophthalmologist's solution was to get custom made
> contact lenses for the patient, then the ophthalmologist should refer
> the patient to an optometrist. I would like to know why a patient
> would bypass their surgeon.
Why not? Because they can't, and they won't. Why can't they and why won't
they? Your guess is as good as mine.
>
> While on the topic. The overwhelming number of doctors on the SE
> website are optometrists. That is interesting. A site dedicated to
> surgery run by doctors who do not perform surgery. There is an
> inherent conflict of interest there.
You seem to be on an anti-optometrist diatribe today. I wonder why.
DrG
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 12:32:32 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
> <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>
>
>
| |
|
| Dr. Gemoules, if you are going to post messages as a doctor, you must
identify yourself.
You can laugh all you like. That is a cheap way of dodging reality.
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 19:10:21 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com>
wrote:
>RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:u33bm09h3lkon1tjv1oqncq0ojt3df8su9@4ax.com:
>
>
>Those who matter know who I am, and you don't really matter. Also, getting
>a lecture from you on how to deport oneself professionally is quite
>laughable.
>
>
>Why not? Because they can't, and they won't. Why can't they and why won't
>they? Your guess is as good as mine.
Here's a thought. When one of those patients comes to you. Try
ASKING them why they are coming to you rather than the surgeon. Then
call the surgeon and ask them why they aren't addressing the problems
of this patient. If nothing else, its your responsibility to get the
background information on the patients you treat. The patient might
not be telling you everything that is in their medical file.
>
>You seem to be on an anti-optometrist diatribe today. I wonder why.
Don't go dragging all optometrists in here. I guess I'm just picking
on you. Gee I wonder why. You might notice that I'm not picking on
the other optometrist who posts here lately. He's behaving himself
for a change.
>
>DrG
>
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-07, 7:11 pm |
| RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:cr8bm0lo7jft78j7c66jnduoku2fitoisg@4ax.com:
> Dr. Gemoules, if you are going to post messages as a doctor, you must
> identify yourself.
> You can laugh all you like. That is a cheap way of dodging reality.
Ragnar. Is that your real name, Ragnar? Or is it RM or Christopher?
I have been using Dr. Leukoma on the internet since 1999. That's my
internet name. Only my patients know me as Dr. Gemoules. I am not
practicing optometry on the internet, so on the internet, I am Dr. Leukoma.
In my practice, I am also "DrG," as in Dr. Gemoules. I am DrG on the
internet as well. Here, I am both "DrG" for Dr. Gemoules, and Dr. Leukoma.
But, really, nobody knows Dr. Gemoules, but they know Dr. Leukoma. There
is no confusion here, Rags. Nobody seems confused, except you. It is yet
another non-issue that you are creating to avoid talking about the real
issue: which is you and your personality. There is nothing wrong with me,
or with most people here. It's you, whoever you are. Look in the mirror.
>
>
> On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 19:10:21 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Here's a thought. When one of those patients comes to you. Try
> ASKING them why they are coming to you rather than the surgeon. Then
> call the surgeon and ask them why they aren't addressing the problems
> of this patient. If nothing else, its your responsibility to get the
> background information on the patients you treat. The patient might
> not be telling you everything that is in their medical file.
Surely you are joking, man.
You must be talking about those patients who have been discharged from
their surgeon's practices because either there is no problem, or the
problem has not been addressed, or the problem is of such magnitude that
the patient is having an extremely difficult time functioning. Actually, I
remember just such a patient recently who went online to find help, was
referred to me by a third party who runs a web site for just such patients,
was referred to another surgeon, then went back to his original surgeon and
wound up getting additional surgery, with the result that the patient came
back to me. I get dizzy just thinking about it.
> Don't go dragging all optometrists in here. I guess I'm just picking
> on you. Gee I wonder why. You might notice that I'm not picking on
> the other optometrist who posts here lately. He's behaving himself
> for a change.
>
No. You distinctly made a point of saying that the doctors on SE were all
optometrists (which is not true, by the way), and then criticized them for
doling out advice on refractive surgery (see above). Now you are trying to
deny that which you said. I don't care if you pick on me, because by your
nature you have to pick on somebody. If you didn't have somebody to pick
on, you would pick your nose.
DrG
| |
| Wizkid 2004-10-07, 7:11 pm |
| It is clear that you have not met some of the LASIK casualties whose
qualilty of life and, in many of cases, livelihood has been seriously
impaired by LASIK. You will find them on an emotional roller coaster
with periodic depression.
One lady, in her early forties, I have consulted with, lost her
business as a result of LASIK complications. She has gone from earning
$300,000 per year to $15,000 per year and is now working as a grade
school teacher's aide. She is also pursuing a lawsuit against the
surgeon who did the procedure...a well known high priced refractive
surgeon (you do not always get what you pay for - contrary to a
recent post on price and quality).
To deny that there are some very serious emotional lows that come with
a poor outcome is incredible and thoughtless. It is real. And it is
very serious. There are a number of people on this board who continue
to dumb down not only the possible outcomes but also their
consequences. This only serves refractive surgery and does not serve
potential patients.
WK
RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<7k3bm098mplf9nfrskbf499sb56grdfsfi@4ax.com>...
> I don't necessarily disagree with you, but when someone implies that
> LASIK was the cause of someone commiting suicide, someone needs to
> have a reality check.
> Also, when somebody repeadly blames LASIK for a drop in rankings in
> their tennis game... and not once mentions or even acknowleges that
> the player (Mary Pierce) had not played in nearly a year due to a back
> injury and also fired her coach, then there is something suspicious
> going on.
>
>
| |
| ycdbsoya 2004-10-07, 7:11 pm |
| While Dr. G has never provided medical care to me, I am 100% sure is
is an expert, and a caring, compassionate professional who is often
very insightful in determining people's needs. I've followed his
postings for years gleaning useful info and hoped to see him someday
for visual rehab. But I just cannot wear contacts, just cannot. Not a
stroke, Dr. G, but a fact, IMO.
OTOH, you have Ragnar, who has really never offered anything but
vituperative spew, seeking to make diminutive anyone's observations,
statements, relaying of facts or opinions if they were not in concert
with his skewed perceptions of reality and human behavior. He is of
comedy value, however, saying things so outrageous that they elicit a
chuckle or two, intended or not. He is this NG's version of the Rishi
Gatti guy on alt.vision.improve. As predictable as the sunrise, one
can rattle Ragnar's cage with a few choice words and get a veritable
attack dog response. Works every time, and would be even more funny if
it was, well, not so sad.
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-07, 7:11 pm |
| RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:cr8bm0lo7jft78j7c66jnduoku2fitoisg@4ax.com:
> Here's a thought. When one of those patients comes to you. Try
> ASKING them why they are coming to you rather than the surgeon. Then
> call the surgeon and ask them why they aren't addressing the problems
> of this patient. If nothing else, its your responsibility to get the
> background information on the patients you treat. The patient might
> not be telling you everything that is in their medical file.
With Ragnar, there is often some hidden kernel that is insightful. So,
cleared of all the insulting debris, I will address that small kernel of a
useful observation.
The average elapsed time between the time a patient has gotten their last
LASIK surgery and the time they have come to my office is 16.5 months.
Surely, you would agree that those patients are well past their "healing
time," and in virtually all cases have exhausted their options with their
surgeon. Those who have come within the first 6 months are typically very,
very desperate to see, have typically seen somebody else first for a second
opinion, and it should not have to be said that these patients suffered a
breakdown in the relationship with their surgeon. Of those few who have
consulted me during that early phase, two have been physicians, one of
those a surgeon who needed to operate, and after two surgeries, I had been
the only one able to help.
There are indeed websites devoted to these patients: One is SE, another is
LME, the third is DoctorMyEye, and the fourth is Complicated Eyes.
Alt.lasik.eyes is possibly the fifth.
DrG
| |
|
| She is also pursuing a lawsuit against the
> surgeon who did the procedure...a well known high priced refractive
> surgeon (you do not always get what you pay for - contrary to a
> recent post on price and quality).
>
You are right, of course. You don't always get what you pay for. I suppose
that I should have said that you rarely get quality when you DON'T pay for
it. However I believe that the point of my post was quite obvious. It may
not be wise to go bargin basement shopping for a surgeon to slice and dice
your eyes... It doesn't take a Wizkid to figure that out.
| |
| Ragnar Suomi 2004-10-08, 10:08 pm |
| On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 19:10:21 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com>
wrote:
>RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:u33bm09h3lkon1tjv1oqncq0ojt3df8su9@4ax.com:
>
>
>Those who matter know who I am, and you don't really matter. Also, getting
>a lecture from you on how to deport oneself professionally is quite
>laughable.
>
Those that matter? Whom might they be?
That wasn't my point anyway. Whether someone matters or not in your
mind, if you are going to post as being a real doctor, you must
identify yourself. Anybody who didn't know better would think you are
Dr. Leukoma.
Here's something troubling. A Google search on "Dr. Gemoules" comes
up with "Dr. Gemoules condems LASIK" you should do something about
clarifying that. The person who posted that can't even spell
condemN.
| |
| Ragnar Suomi 2004-10-08, 10:08 pm |
| I don't care if you have been using the ficticious name of Dr. Leukoma
for 100 years. Any time you post a message as a doctor, you are in
effect practicing. It would be fine if you merely called yourself
G or Leukoma and the people who know better would know whom you are.
But you can't call yourself Dr. G nor Dr. Leukoma.
As to whom I am, I have repeatedly explained that I am RM and Ragnar.
The Ragnar account is linked to RoadRunner which is having newsgroup
problems. I get no new headers for days, then I get bursts of dozens
of them. I expected Roadrunner to fix that problem a month ago but it
lingers. RM is my premium Easynews id. Whom I am is irrelevant
since I don't ever portray myself as an eyecare professional - which
brings up something else. You should not only identify yourself as a
doctor, but as an OD. There are a lot of doctors around. A teacher I
once had was a doctor of folk-dancing. One might reasonably assume
that since this is the LASIK surgery newsgroup that you are a surgeon.
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 21:07:21 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com>
wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:cr8bm0lo7jft78j7c66jnduoku2fitoisg@4ax.com:
>
>
>Ragnar. Is that your real name, Ragnar? Or is it RM or Christopher?
>
>I have been using Dr. Leukoma on the internet since 1999. That's my
>internet name. Only my patients know me as Dr. Gemoules. I am not
>practicing optometry on the internet, so on the internet, I am Dr. Leukoma.
>In my practice, I am also "DrG," as in Dr. Gemoules. I am DrG on the
>internet as well. Here, I am both "DrG" for Dr. Gemoules, and Dr. Leukoma.
>But, really, nobody knows Dr. Gemoules, but they know Dr. Leukoma. There
>is no confusion here, Rags. Nobody seems confused, except you. It is yet
>another non-issue that you are creating to avoid talking about the real
>issue: which is you and your personality. There is nothing wrong with me,
>or with most people here. It's you, whoever you are. Look in the mirror.
| |
| Ragnar Suomi 2004-10-08, 10:08 pm |
| Hmm... a light just went on...
But anyway.. what is this job that pays $300,000 a year that the
person couldn't do anymore?
You did a consult with this person... for what purpose? To improve
the person's vision? No... to pursue a lawsuit! Hmm... now we
know where you are coming from.
On 7 Oct 2004 16:11:55 -0700, gospa68@aol.com (Wizkid) wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>It is clear that you have not met some of the LASIK casualties whose
>qualilty of life and, in many of cases, livelihood has been seriously
>impaired by LASIK. You will find them on an emotional roller coaster
>with periodic depression.
>
>One lady, in her early forties, I have consulted with, lost her
>business as a result of LASIK complications. She has gone from earning
>$300,000 per year to $15,000 per year and is now working as a grade
>school teacher's aide. She is also pursuing a lawsuit against the
>surgeon who did the procedure...a well known high priced refractive
>surgeon (you do not always get what you pay for - contrary to a
>recent post on price and quality).
>
>To deny that there are some very serious emotional lows that come with
>a poor outcome is incredible and thoughtless. It is real. And it is
>very serious. There are a number of people on this board who continue
>to dumb down not only the possible outcomes but also their
>consequences. This only serves refractive surgery and does not serve
>potential patients.
>WK
>
> RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<7k3bm098mplf9nfrskbf499sb56grdfsfi@4ax.com>...
| |
| Ragnar Suomi 2004-10-09, 2:08 am |
| Good for you. Go see him. Here's a tip for you. When you plan your
trip, look up Dr. Gemoules not Dr. G nor Dr. Leukoma in the phone
book.
On 7 Oct 2004 16:31:57 -0700, the_boydstons@hotmail.com (ycdbsoya)
wrote:
>While Dr. G has never provided medical care to me, I am 100% sure is
>is an expert, and a caring, compassionate professional who is often
>very insightful in determining people's needs. I've followed his
>postings for years gleaning useful info and hoped to see him someday
>for visual rehab. But I just cannot wear contacts, just cannot. Not a
>stroke, Dr. G, but a fact, IMO.
>
>OTOH, you have Ragnar, who has really never offered anything but
>vituperative spew, seeking to make diminutive anyone's observations,
>statements, relaying of facts or opinions if they were not in concert
>with his skewed perceptions of reality and human behavior. He is of
>comedy value, however, saying things so outrageous that they elicit a
>chuckle or two, intended or not. He is this NG's version of the Rishi
>Gatti guy on alt.vision.improve. As predictable as the sunrise, one
>can rattle Ragnar's cage with a few choice words and get a veritable
>attack dog response. Works every time, and would be even more funny if
>it was, well, not so sad.
| |
| Ragnar Suomi 2004-10-09, 2:08 am |
| On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 00:01:49 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com>
wrote:
>RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:cr8bm0lo7jft78j7c66jnduoku2fitoisg@4ax.com:
>
>
>
>With Ragnar, there is often some hidden kernel that is insightful. So,
>cleared of all the insulting debris, I will address that small kernel of a
>useful observation.
>
>The average elapsed time between the time a patient has gotten their last
>LASIK surgery and the time they have come to my office is 16.5 months.
>Surely, you would agree that those patients are well past their "healing
>time," and in virtually all cases have exhausted their options with their
>surgeon. Those who have come within the first 6 months are typically very,
>very desperate to see, have typically seen somebody else first for a second
>opinion, and it should not have to be said that these patients suffered a
>breakdown in the relationship with their surgeon. Of those few who have
>consulted me during that early phase, two have been physicians, one of
>those a surgeon who needed to operate, and after two surgeries, I had been
>the only one able to help.
>
>There are indeed websites devoted to these patients: One is SE, another is
>LME, the third is DoctorMyEye, and the fourth is Complicated Eyes.
>Alt.lasik.eyes is possibly the fifth.
>
>DrG
Other than Complicated eyes... it's frightening that you would have
the gall to mention those other sites as reputable sources. You are
doing a disservice in suggesting that LASIK is plagued by
complications. Even if you go by the outdated complication rate of
3% for LASIK, the current complication rate for contacts is 5%.
This is not the Lasik complications group. The complications are very
rare and don't apply to the vast majority of patients. There should
be places for people with LASIK or contact lens complications. This
is not the place though..
Since your only intersted in self-serving posts, you will continue to
post as Dr. Leukoma instead of Dr. Gemoules. You will continue to
ignore the positive aspects of LASIK and dredge up the dissected rare
bits of negativity. That's not an easy task. If not for the
malcontent websites, it would be just about impossible for the average
person to find anything negative about LASIK. Unfortunately, when a
person with real complications does find this negative information,
they get useless and dangerous misinformation rather than useful
information to improve their situation. It seems like the best many
of these sites offer is a means to sue their doctors. That again is
not great advice. The odds of winning a lawsuit are very low even
when the doctor is clearly at fault. There are people suing Bin
Laden for wrongful death. Do you think they are wasting their time
pursuing that? Somehow I don't thing they will ever collect.
| |
| serebel 2004-10-09, 2:08 am |
| gospa68@aol.com (Wizkid) wrote in message news:<>
> To deny that there are some very serious emotional lows that come with
> a poor outcome is incredible and thoughtless. It is real. And it is
> very serious. There are a number of people on this board who continue
> to dumb down not only the possible outcomes but also their
> consequences. This only serves refractive surgery and does not serve
> potential patients.
> WK
>
>
As in all surgical procedures, shit happens, and you have to deal with it.
SErebel
| |
| Leukoma 2004-10-09, 7:09 am |
| Ragnar Suomi <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:2qjem0tf0rthvakj96vkfocin5bp1bugvd@4ax.com:
>
> Those that matter? Whom might they be?
> That wasn't my point anyway. Whether someone matters or not in your
> mind, if you are going to post as being a real doctor, you must
> identify yourself. Anybody who didn't know better would think you are
> Dr. Leukoma.
> Here's something troubling. A Google search on "Dr. Gemoules" comes
> up with "Dr. Gemoules condems LASIK" you should do something about
> clarifying that. The person who posted that can't even spell
> condemN.
You're so correct, Ragnar. I did a Google search on my own name and came
up with this. Thanks for the tip. It looks like quite a few people were
given the opportunity to see that Dr. Gemoules is Dr. Leukoma and vice-
versa.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over in Coppell, Dr. Gemoules recently met with a woman who traveled from
Spain, desperate for his post-LASIK help. Many others have received his
advice via SurgicalEyes.com under his pseudonym, Dr. Leukoma. In the span
of three years, he posted more than 5,000 answers to questions from
patients around the world on that site.
Gemoules doesn't think the surgery should be stopped entirely, because too
many people have benefited from it. But he feels that changes -- such as
better information for consumers and research into LASIK's long-term
effects -- are needed. He also believes there should be tighter controls on
advertising and more stringent regulation of surgeons' qualifications.
In Gemoules' office reception area, visitors find a map of the world
hanging on the wall. At first glance it seems no more than a colorful
decoration. A closer look reveals a spray of pins stuck into locales from
Canada to South America to Europe --all the places from which patients have
come seeking the doctor's help. Following the Spanish woman's visit, a new
pin was added.
"I have known people who have become clinically depressed, who have become
virtual prisoners in their homes at night, who have had to change careers
or seek disability, whose marriages were disrupted or ended in divorce, all
precipitated by a bad surgical outcome," Gemoules said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
DrG, O.D.
| |
| Ragnar Suomi 2004-10-09, 11:09 am |
| Did you notice who posted that subject like of "Dr. Gemoules Condems
LASIK"? Brent Hanson and his Lasikfraud webstie. The post is not
a condemNation at all. Altering the subject line is a classic trick
of Sandy and Brent.
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 11:01:57 GMT, Leukoma <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com>
wrote:
>Ragnar Suomi <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:2qjem0tf0rthvakj96vkfocin5bp1bugvd@4ax.com:
>
>
>
>
>You're so correct, Ragnar. I did a Google search on my own name and came
>up with this. Thanks for the tip. It looks like quite a few people were
>given the opportunity to see that Dr. Gemoules is Dr. Leukoma and vice-
>versa.
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Over in Coppell, Dr. Gemoules recently met with a woman who traveled from
>Spain, desperate for his post-LASIK help. Many others have received his
>advice via SurgicalEyes.com under his pseudonym, Dr. Leukoma. In the span
>of three years, he posted more than 5,000 answers to questions from
>patients around the world on that site.
>
>Gemoules doesn't think the surgery should be stopped entirely, because too
>many people have benefited from it. But he feels that changes -- such as
>better information for consumers and research into LASIK's long-term
>effects -- are needed. He also believes there should be tighter controls on
>advertising and more stringent regulation of surgeons' qualifications.
>
>In Gemoules' office reception area, visitors find a map of the world
>hanging on the wall. At first glance it seems no more than a colorful
>decoration. A closer look reveals a spray of pins stuck into locales from
>Canada to South America to Europe --all the places from which patients have
>come seeking the doctor's help. Following the Spanish woman's visit, a new
>pin was added.
>
>"I have known people who have become clinically depressed, who have become
>virtual prisoners in their homes at night, who have had to change careers
>or seek disability, whose marriages were disrupted or ended in divorce, all
>precipitated by a bad surgical outcome," Gemoules said.
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>DrG, O.D.
| |
| Wizkid 2004-10-09, 11:09 am |
| sl,
As an industry insider, I will take issue with your implication of
high LASIK pricing=good outcomes. This has been a tact taken by
surgeons who are trying to squeeze more money from this procedure. I
know of no study, that is a real solid study, that shows any
correlation between price and quality in our field. LASIK has basic
flaws that are inherent regardless of price and surgeon's so-called
skill. (Remember when LASIK was first marketed, to ease concerns on
safety, as a precision, computer based procedure requiring little
surgeon skill?)If you have reputable data, not talk, to refute this, I
would love to see it.
Presently, surgeons are moving to Intralase lasers and wavefront to
justify higher prices. Once these have saturated the market, there
will be something else. Of the two, wavefront may add some value but
it comes with some trade-offs. Intralase adds considerable cost for
the surgeon to the procedure but whether it improves outcomes and/or
reduces complications remains dubious and unproven.
The only caution I have on low prices is that the consumer must be on
the watch for "bait and switch" and "upgrades' as low prices may
merely be a come-on. These practices, unfortunately, are prevalent in
our field and underscore how low the bar has moved in providing honest
and quality medical care in Ophthalmology.
WK
"sl" <sleach@bak.rr.com> wrote in message news:<BLudnaCO06i2n_vcRVn-jw@giganews.com>...
> You are right, of course. You don't always get what you pay for. I suppose
> that I should have said that you rarely get quality when you DON'T pay for
> it. However I believe that the point of my post was quite obvious. It may
> not be wise to go bargin basement shopping for a surgeon to slice and dice
> your eyes... It doesn't take a Wizkid to figure that out.
| |
|
| On 9 Oct 2004 07:12:01 -0700, gospa68@aol.com (Wizkid) wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>sl,
>As an industry insider, I will take issue with your implication of
>high LASIK pricing=good outcomes. This has been a tact taken by
>surgeons who are trying to squeeze more money from this procedure. I
>know of no study, that is a real solid study, that shows any
>correlation between price and quality in our field. LASIK has basic
>flaws that are inherent regardless of price and surgeon's so-called
>skill. (Remember when LASIK was first marketed, to ease concerns on
>safety, as a precision, computer based procedure requiring little
>surgeon skill?)If you have reputable data, not talk, to refute this, I
>would love to see it.
>
>Presently, surgeons are moving to Intralase lasers and wavefront to
>justify higher prices. Once these have saturated the market, there
>will be something else. Of the two, wavefront may add some value but
>it comes with some trade-offs. Intralase adds considerable cost for
>the surgeon to the procedure but whether it improves outcomes and/or
>reduces complications remains dubious and unproven.
>
>The only caution I have on low prices is that the consumer must be on
>the watch for "bait and switch" and "upgrades' as low prices may
>merely be a come-on. These practices, unfortunately, are prevalent in
>our field and underscore how low the bar has moved in providing honest
>and quality medical care in Ophthalmology.
>WK
>
>"sl" <sleach@bak.rr.com> wrote in message news:<BLudnaCO06i2n_vcRVn-jw@giganews.com>...
Glad to hear that. People are constantly considering those $299 -
$499 prices. I get tired of addressing that. It's a classic bait
and switch. Almost nobody gets those prices because they don't fit
the restrictive criteria for it. Maybe you would like to remind
people that seeking out a bargain is fine for buying furniture, but
not for eye surgery.
| |
|
| Thanks for the info Wizkid. Now I feel really stupid. I could have driven
A measly 2 hours to Los Angeles for a quick FLAP & ZAP, and saved myself
$2000. But alas, it's too late for me now. I had my LASIK 3 weeks ago.
Maybe there are others considering LASIK and reading this thread that will
benifit from your Cost Saving advice...
PS, just in case anybody is wondering, I consider my $3000 LASIK a success,
although I do see the classic haloes at night(no bad enough to affect my
driving or other night activities). I hope they clear up after a few months
or so...
> sl,
> As an industry insider, I will take issue with your implication of
> high LASIK pricing=good outcomes. This has been a tact taken by
> surgeons who are trying to squeeze more money from this procedure. I
> know of no study, that is a real solid study, that shows any
> correlation between price and quality in our field. LASIK has basic
> flaws that are inherent regardless of price and surgeon's so-called
> skill. (Remember when LASIK was first marketed, to ease concerns on
> safety, as a precision, computer based procedure requiring little
> surgeon skill?)If you have reputable data, not talk, to refute this, I
> would love to see it.
>
> Presently, surgeons are moving to Intralase lasers and wavefront to
> justify higher prices. Once these have saturated the market, there
> will be something else. Of the two, wavefront may add some value but
> it comes with some trade-offs. Intralase adds considerable cost for
> the surgeon to the procedure but whether it improves outcomes and/or
> reduces complications remains dubious and unproven.
>
> The only caution I have on low prices is that the consumer must be on
> the watch for "bait and switch" and "upgrades' as low prices may
> merely be a come-on. These practices, unfortunately, are prevalent in
> our field and underscore how low the bar has moved in providing honest
> and quality medical care in Ophthalmology.
> WK
>
> "sl" <sleach@bak.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<BLudnaCO06i2n_vcRVn-jw@giganews.com>...[vbcol=seagreen]
suppose[vbcol=seagreen]
for[vbcol=seagreen]
may[vbcol=seagreen]
dice[vbcol=seagreen]
| |
| Ragnar Suomi 2004-10-10, 2:11 am |
| One of the biggest issues about the $499 prices is that they are
largely for marketing purposes only. For instance, that price
usually has limitations to it such as: you must have the procedure
done on the NIDEK (VISX costs more), you are not entitled to any free
enhancements (and enhancements cost $700 per eye - and the low cost
procedures have a 20% enhancement rate), your prescription has to be
extremely mild, you can have virtually no astigmatism, they will lie
to find any reason necessary to make your eyes ineligible for the low
price.
Here's an example. When I went to LVI, their bilateral price was
$600 (299 per eye). Forget that, they wanted $2000 plus requiring
me to buy meds. I wound up going elsewhere for $3500. After I got
ahold of LVI's actual pricing structure, I added up how much the same
services would cost me at LVI. It came up to $3600! So they were
actually $100 MORE.
On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 10:59:15 -0700, "sl" <sleach@bak.rr.com> wrote:
>Thanks for the info Wizkid. Now I feel really stupid. I could have driven
>A measly 2 hours to Los Angeles for a quick FLAP & ZAP, and saved myself
>$2000. But alas, it's too late for me now. I had my LASIK 3 weeks ago.
>Maybe there are others considering LASIK and reading this thread that will
>benifit from your Cost Saving advice...
>
>PS, just in case anybody is wondering, I consider my $3000 LASIK a success,
>although I do see the classic haloes at night(no bad enough to affect my
>driving or other night activities). I hope they clear up after a few months
>or so...
>
>news:<BLudnaCO06i2n_vcRVn-jw@giganews.com>...
>suppose
>for
>may
>dice
>
|
| |
|
|