|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > October 2004 > Why would this happen?
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 |
Why would this happen?
|
|
| ycdbsoya 2004-10-15, 7:25 pm |
| Had LASIK about 4 years ago, and have been plagued by Pretty bad NVD
and daytime ghosting/smearing of images the entire time. Lately, it
seems like my night vision is getting worse but my daytime vision is
getting better. At Costco the other day, I passed by the Opt's booth
and casually read the Snellen chart. What's weird is I could read the
20/15 line easily from the appropriate distance, when about 3-6 months
before I couldn't cut the 20/30, 20/25 or 20/20 (+2 or 3) lines at
all. Seems there's less visual garbage as well. But at night, my
starbursts and CS seem worse.
I won't look this gift horse in the mouth, but what could be happening
here? Seems a little late for improvements.
| |
|
| I'd take a guess that it might be due to temperature or humidity.
I didn't know Costco was doing eyecare now. That's scary. In the
area I live, LVI's optical wing called Eyeglasses World is creeping
in. There is already too much competition around here. If Wal-Mart
gets into eyecare (they probably will), they will really put the big
hurt on a lot of optometrists and as a side-effect ophthalmologists
also.
Insurance plans typically give eyecare very little if any coverage. I
have always been puzzled at how little insurance coverage things like
dental and optical get. One more crack at LVI today. They sell a
fake insurance policy which is essentially a pre-pay deal. You get
covered only at LVI or Eyeglasses World facilities.
On 15 Oct 2004 10:27:58 -0700, the_boydstons@hotmail.com (ycdbsoya)
wrote:
>Had LASIK about 4 years ago, and have been plagued by Pretty bad NVD
>and daytime ghosting/smearing of images the entire time. Lately, it
>seems like my night vision is getting worse but my daytime vision is
>getting better. At Costco the other day, I passed by the Opt's booth
>and casually read the Snellen chart. What's weird is I could read the
>20/15 line easily from the appropriate distance, when about 3-6 months
>before I couldn't cut the 20/30, 20/25 or 20/20 (+2 or 3) lines at
>all. Seems there's less visual garbage as well. But at night, my
>starbursts and CS seem worse.
>
>I won't look this gift horse in the mouth, but what could be happening
>here? Seems a little late for improvements.
| |
| ycdbsoya 2004-10-15, 7:25 pm |
| Too late Rags, WalMart is already something like the USA's 8th largest
eye care provider in terms of sales volume. CostCo's been doing eye
care for nearly 10 years now.
You really need to come out from under your rock and look around.
On second thought, please stay there.
CRM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<9v60n094kmrop02fho6k9t2q44n08p8iv6@4ax.com>...[vbcol=seagreen]
> I'd take a guess that it might be due to temperature or humidity.
> I didn't know Costco was doing eyecare now. That's scary. In the
> area I live, LVI's optical wing called Eyeglasses World is creeping
> in. There is already too much competition around here. If Wal-Mart
> gets into eyecare (they probably will), they will really put the big
> hurt on a lot of optometrists and as a side-effect ophthalmologists
> also.
> Insurance plans typically give eyecare very little if any coverage. I
> have always been puzzled at how little insurance coverage things like
> dental and optical get. One more crack at LVI today. They sell a
> fake insurance policy which is essentially a pre-pay deal. You get
> covered only at LVI or Eyeglasses World facilities.
>
>
>
> On 15 Oct 2004 10:27:58 -0700, the_boydstons@hotmail.com (ycdbsoya)
> wrote:
>
| |
| serebel 2004-10-15, 10:08 pm |
| the_boydstons@hotmail.com (ycdbsoya) wrote in message news:<d6260d64.0410150927.6c112083@posting.google.com>...
> Had LASIK about 4 years ago, and have been plagued by Pretty bad NVD
> and daytime ghosting/smearing of images the entire time. Lately, it
> seems like my night vision is getting worse but my daytime vision is
> getting better. At Costco the other day, I passed by the Opt's booth
> and casually read the Snellen chart. What's weird is I could read the
> 20/15 line easily from the appropriate distance, when about 3-6 months
> before I couldn't cut the 20/30, 20/25 or 20/20 (+2 or 3) lines at
> all. Seems there's less visual garbage as well. But at night, my
> starbursts and CS seem worse.
>
> I won't look this gift horse in the mouth, but what could be happening
> here? Seems a little late for improvements.
This may seem a little simplistic, but aren't there tests for what is
causing your nighttime vision problems?
I hope Dr. G is reading this thread.
If I were you, I would go to my eye doc and get some concrete answers.
SErebel
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-16, 2:09 am |
| the_boydstons@hotmail.com (ycdbsoya) wrote in
news:d6260d64.0410150927.6c112083@posting.google.com:
> Had LASIK about 4 years ago, and have been plagued by Pretty bad NVD
> and daytime ghosting/smearing of images the entire time. Lately, it
> seems like my night vision is getting worse but my daytime vision is
> getting better. At Costco the other day, I passed by the Opt's booth
> and casually read the Snellen chart. What's weird is I could read the
> 20/15 line easily from the appropriate distance, when about 3-6 months
> before I couldn't cut the 20/30, 20/25 or 20/20 (+2 or 3) lines at
> all. Seems there's less visual garbage as well. But at night, my
> starbursts and CS seem worse.
>
> I won't look this gift horse in the mouth, but what could be happening
> here? Seems a little late for improvements.
>
Get some topographies taken. That's the only way to know for sure. Does
the optom at Costco have a topographer?
DrG
| |
|
| Sorry, I don't shop in those warehouse stores that pay their workers
like slaves and destroy the local economys.
This is surreal. I wonder when Wal-Mart is going to start doing brain
surgery? Actually, the eyes are extensions of the brain. Scary.
"Attention shoppers, on aisle 5 we have a special on creamed corn, 5
cans for a dollar. On aisle 12 we have little boys pants half off.
On aisle 27 we have a brain surgery in progress - come on over an
watch - free popcorn"
"Attention, we need an associate to direct Mr. Jackson to aisle 12"
On 15 Oct 2004 15:59:22 -0700, the_boydstons@hotmail.com (ycdbsoya)
wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Too late Rags, WalMart is already something like the USA's 8th largest
>eye care provider in terms of sales volume. CostCo's been doing eye
>care for nearly 10 years now.
>
>You really need to come out from under your rock and look around.
>
>On second thought, please stay there.
>
>CRM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<9v60n094kmrop02fho6k9t2q44n08p8iv6@4ax.com>...
| |
|
| On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 03:25:25 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>the_boydstons@hotmail.com (ycdbsoya) wrote in
>news:d6260d64.0410150927.6c112083@posting.google.com:
>
>
>Get some topographies taken. That's the only way to know for sure. Does
>the optom at Costco have a topographer?
>
>DrG
Here we go with lousy advice again. Very few optometrists have a
topographer. On the other hand, almost all ophthalmologists do have a
topographer. A doctor who doesn't refer people appropriately is doing
a disservice.
| |
| VCopelan 2004-10-17, 2:09 am |
| >RM rm@yahoo.com Writes:
>Sorry, I don't shop in those warehouse stores that pay their workers
>like slaves and destroy the local economys.
>
>This is surreal. I wonder when Wal-Mart is going to start doing brain
>surgery?
The optometrists at both Costco and Wal-Mart are not employees of either
corporation (at least that is what I have been told). They are independent
business people who have some sort of lease agreement with either corporation
for space in a store. Wallyworld would probably start doing brain surgery in
their stores if they could find greedy physicians also willing to lease space
in their stores.
| |
|
| You are right of course, but there is an issue here.
All these stores that say "independent doctor..." are baloney.
Although technically independent, everything those doctors do, and how
many exams they do, and how much money they bring in are monitored
100%. If the "independent doctors" don't behave the way the store
wants, they are kicked out / evicted from the store.
On the other hand, there are doctors who open a private practice and
start getting into things such as botox and bait-and-switch tactics to
make big bucks.
The challenge for the consumer is to find a competent, rational,
effective, honest physician. Except for a chiropractor, you won't
find one of those in this newsgroup.
If one goes to a Wal-Mart or EyeGlasses World or get a coupon for a
$20 full eye exam, the odds of a bad experience are just about
certain. However, going to even the most expensive and/or vigilant
physician is no guarantee that the physician isn't on an ego trip.
The best advice I can give about selecting a physician is to visit a
few places and have a look around. Notice the differences in the
offices. I'd stay away from any place that had botox brochures on
display. Also stay away from places that look like a "boutique" with
all kinds of prices and full color posters all over the place. If the
staff seem either incompetent/inept or if they push you around like a
piece of meat, find another place.
On 17 Oct 2004 05:08:45 GMT, vcopelan@aol.com (VCopelan) wrote:
>
>
>The optometrists at both Costco and Wal-Mart are not employees of either
>corporation (at least that is what I have been told). They are independent
>business people who have some sort of lease agreement with either corporation
>for space in a store. Wallyworld would probably start doing brain surgery in
>their stores if they could find greedy physicians also willing to lease space
>in their stores.
| |
| DoctorMyEye 2004-10-17, 7:11 pm |
| You are right that many optometrists still don't do topography, but I
doubt that you can say "most" don't anymore. Many of us are on our
second or third topographer, and our fourth or fifth auto-refractor,
as technology continues to get cheaper, better and more readily
available. An O.D. can't co-manage refractive surgery without a
topographer, so that has been an inspiration for the "average"
optometrist to go and get one.
Hey, wait a minute. You should all be writing this down. Doctor Ken
Minarik has actually found something really nice to say about
refractive surgery! The advent of refractive surgery has nudged the
optometric profession to start buying the necessary tools to work with
patients beyond the traditional refraction. In my community, the
unwritten "standard of care" among optometrists includes topography
and retinal photography on all patients.
RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<srs2n0pbqt4iqeldp2jq07gp5met663l4k@4ax.com>...
> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 03:25:25 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
> <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>
>
> Here we go with lousy advice again. Very few optometrists have a
> topographer. On the other hand, almost all ophthalmologists do have a
> topographer. A doctor who doesn't refer people appropriately is doing
> a disservice.
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-17, 7:11 pm |
| RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:srs2n0pbqt4iqeldp2jq07gp5met663l4k@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 03:25:25 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
> <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>
>
> Here we go with lousy advice again. Very few optometrists have a
> topographer. On the other hand, almost all ophthalmologists do have a
> topographer. A doctor who doesn't refer people appropriately is doing
> a disservice.
>
Did you see Dr. Minarik's post? I hope you will learn something from him.
DrG
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-17, 7:11 pm |
| I acquired my topographer in 1997, in anticipation of the co-management
that would follow.
DrG
doctor_my_eye@msn.com (DoctorMyEye) wrote in
news:79e0f419.0410170944.641e6ff6@posting.google.com:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> You are right that many optometrists still don't do topography, but I
> doubt that you can say "most" don't anymore. Many of us are on our
> second or third topographer, and our fourth or fifth auto-refractor,
> as technology continues to get cheaper, better and more readily
> available. An O.D. can't co-manage refractive surgery without a
> topographer, so that has been an inspiration for the "average"
> optometrist to go and get one.
>
> Hey, wait a minute. You should all be writing this down. Doctor Ken
> Minarik has actually found something really nice to say about
> refractive surgery! The advent of refractive surgery has nudged the
> optometric profession to start buying the necessary tools to work with
> patients beyond the traditional refraction. In my community, the
> unwritten "standard of care" among optometrists includes topography
> and retinal photography on all patients.
>
>
> RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<srs2n0pbqt4iqeldp2jq07gp5met663l4k@4ax.com>...
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-17, 7:11 pm |
| RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:srs2n0pbqt4iqeldp2jq07gp5met663l4k@4ax.com:
>
> Here we go with lousy advice again. Very few optometrists have a
> topographer. On the other hand, almost all ophthalmologists do have a
> topographer. A doctor who doesn't refer people appropriately is doing
> a disservice.
>
Indeed, it is a shame that with so many topographers in the hands of
refractive surgeons that there wouldn't be more experts among them. Now
that optometrists have for the most part acquired topographers, some
refractive surgeons now feel that they must ignore topography in favor of
wavefront aberrometry, with dubious consequences. I have a few examples I
will present here in this NG. Also, please note that I said "refractive
surgeons" instead of "ophthalmologists." Not all ophthalmologists are
refractive surgeons.
Drg
| |
| Rebecca 2004-10-17, 10:08 pm |
| "Dr. Leukoma" <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote in message news:<Xns9585AC7B916BCdrgleukomacom@216.148.227.77>...
> RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:srs2n0pbqt4iqeldp2jq07gp5met663l4k@4ax.com:
> Indeed, it is a shame that with so many topographers in the hands of
> refractive surgeons that there wouldn't be more experts among them.
Quite.
| |
|
| On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 21:35:05 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:srs2n0pbqt4iqeldp2jq07gp5met663l4k@4ax.com:
>
>
>Did you see Dr. Minarik's post? I hope you will learn something from him.
>
>DrG
Yes, I saw Dr. Minarik's post. He seems to be the most useful eye
doctor posting in this newsgroup now. That's not saying too much
though.
However, I disagree with him that most OD's have a topographer. They
are very rare in OD's offices. Just about everyone has an
auto-refractor though.
| |
|
| Leave it to you to try and cash in on an unproven procedure in it's
infancy. I would not want to be a 1997 Lasik patient.
Ironically, now that the Lasik procedure has been done several million
times and has been vastly improved, now you aren't as enthusiastic
about it. Could it be that you are upset that you aren't getting many
"rehabilitation" cases because the procedure is so perfect now?
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 21:35:59 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>I acquired my topographer in 1997, in anticipation of the co-management
>that would follow.
>
>DrG
>
>doctor_my_eye@msn.com (DoctorMyEye) wrote in
>news:79e0f419.0410170944.641e6ff6@posting.google.com:
>
| |
|
| If you want to split hairs, refractive surgeons do not need to be
ophthalmologists, but virtually all of them are. They can also be
osteopaths. Whatever the case, the surgeons have 4 years worth of
medical school whereas you have zero.
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 21:46:41 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:srs2n0pbqt4iqeldp2jq07gp5met663l4k@4ax.com:
>
>
>
>Indeed, it is a shame that with so many topographers in the hands of
>refractive surgeons that there wouldn't be more experts among them. Now
>that optometrists have for the most part acquired topographers, some
>refractive surgeons now feel that they must ignore topography in favor of
>wavefront aberrometry, with dubious consequences. I have a few examples I
>will present here in this NG. Also, please note that I said "refractive
>surgeons" instead of "ophthalmologists." Not all ophthalmologists are
>refractive surgeons.
>
>Drg
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-18, 7:07 am |
| RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in news:m797n05ds4s8gu3lfkbp3ia4vrao8di8br@4ax.com:
> Leave it to you to try and cash in on an unproven procedure in it's
> infancy. I would not want to be a 1997 Lasik patient.
> Ironically, now that the Lasik procedure has been done several million
> times and has been vastly improved, now you aren't as enthusiastic
> about it. Could it be that you are upset that you aren't getting many
> "rehabilitation" cases because the procedure is so perfect now?
Actually, PRK preceded LASIK as a procedure. Whether or not LASIK is an
"improvement" over PRK is still being debated today. Coincidentally, as
LASIK became the procedure of choice, my interest in co-management waned.
Your comments about rehabilitation show your ignorance. I have stated here
and elsewhere, going back several years, that post-RS patients constitute a
very small percentage of my practice. This number, however, has remained
quite steady. I would like to see it become zero. You know that the
complication rate with contact lenses is virtually zero, don't you?
DrG
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-18, 7:07 am |
| RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:fh97n0hh199f3389bgp3p684fjdgfhm9s3@4ax.com:
> If you want to split hairs, refractive surgeons do not need to be
> ophthalmologists, but virtually all of them are. They can also be
> osteopaths. Whatever the case, the surgeons have 4 years worth of
> medical school whereas you have zero.
If you really want to split hairs, and ophthalmologist can also be an
osteopath, and vice-versa.
Splitting the hair even further, O.D.s can perform refractive surgery in
Oklahoma, about three hours drive from me. I wonder if it will become
contagious and spread to other states?
DrG
| |
| Ragnar Suomi 2004-10-18, 11:08 am |
| PRK did indeed predate LASIK. That's not the relevant issue. What is
relevant is that you were quite zealous in the area of refractive
surgery for myopes. 1997 is early.
Interestingly... if memory serves... at the time you were associated
with TLC who were the originators of cut-rate refractive surgery.
They pioneered the field of unscrupulous behavior. They have improved
since you parted ways with them, but now there are places such as LVI
to take their place.
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 11:55:05 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in news:m797n05ds4s8gu3lfkbp3ia4vrao8di8br@4ax.com:
>
>
>Actually, PRK preceded LASIK as a procedure. Whether or not LASIK is an
>"improvement" over PRK is still being debated today. Coincidentally, as
>LASIK became the procedure of choice, my interest in co-management waned.
>
>Your comments about rehabilitation show your ignorance. I have stated here
>and elsewhere, going back several years, that post-RS patients constitute a
>very small percentage of my practice. This number, however, has remained
>quite steady. I would like to see it become zero. You know that the
>complication rate with contact lenses is virtually zero, don't you?
>
>DrG
considering that the number of LASIK patients has increased from
several thousand to several million in just a few years, the fact that
your post-RS patients remaining steady is remarkable. One would
expect that if the number of LASIK patients went from 100,000 to
1,500,000 per year that there would be 15 times as many post-RS
patients.
| |
| Ragnar Suomi 2004-10-18, 11:08 am |
| On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 11:58:11 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:fh97n0hh199f3389bgp3p684fjdgfhm9s3@4ax.com:
>
>
>
>If you really want to split hairs, and ophthalmologist can also be an
>osteopath, and vice-versa.
>
>Splitting the hair even further, O.D.s can perform refractive surgery in
>Oklahoma, about three hours drive from me. I wonder if it will become
>contagious and spread to other states?
>
>DrG
In Vancouver Canada, which is a MAJOR city - opticians do
prescriptions for glasses and contacts.
You do more tap dancing around the issues than John Kerry.
Oklahoma allows optometrists certified to perform PRK and all laser
Lasik because they lack enough ophthalmologists to meet the demand for
the LASIK procedure.
Getting back to the point, which you deleted from your response, the
point was that virtually all LASIK providers are ophthalmologists.
There are a few exceptions.
I will say one thing about Minarik, at least he has a spine. He can
take criticism without throwing a tantrum like a crybaby. In fact, he
tends to wise up and grow a bit when he's criticized - which is the
purpose of constructive criticism.
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-18, 7:11 pm |
| Ragnar Suomi <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:01o7n0piuqiqllcqvtoqpn7bps0beiup1m@4ax.com:
> PRK did indeed predate LASIK. That's not the relevant issue. What is
> relevant is that you were quite zealous in the area of refractive
> surgery for myopes. 1997 is early.
> Interestingly... if memory serves... at the time you were associated
> with TLC who were the originators of cut-rate refractive surgery.
> They pioneered the field of unscrupulous behavior. They have improved
> since you parted ways with them, but now there are places such as LVI
> to take their place.
Aha. Ragnar is actually Brent. I knew it.
DrG
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-18, 7:11 pm |
| Ragnar Suomi <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:8ho7n0d94k1lna19hbp76loijtl9cdb6bi@4ax.com:
>
> In Vancouver Canada, which is a MAJOR city - opticians do
> prescriptions for glasses and contacts.
> You do more tap dancing around the issues than John Kerry.
This is alt.lasik.eyes and you talk about opticians in Canada.
>
> Oklahoma allows optometrists certified to perform PRK and all laser
> Lasik because they lack enough ophthalmologists to meet the demand for
> the LASIK procedure.
>
> Getting back to the point, which you deleted from your response, the
> point was that virtually all LASIK providers are ophthalmologists.
> There are a few exceptions.
No. You made a wrong statement and I corrected you. You are indeed the
baby Sandy said you were.
>
> I will say one thing about Minarik, at least he has a spine. He can
> take criticism without throwing a tantrum like a crybaby. In fact, he
> tends to wise up and grow a bit when he's criticized - which is the
> purpose of constructive criticism.
I guess if I used a few cuss words you would think I had a spine, too. You
sure are getting all cross lately, Ragnar. I guess all is not a bed of
roses in LASIK LA-LA-LAND.
DrG
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-10-18, 7:11 pm |
|
>Aha. Ragnar is actually Brent. I knew it.
LOL
If he/they are, then one of them has a really big personality
disorder.
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.
| |
|
| On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:22:33 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com>
wrote:
>Ragnar Suomi <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:01o7n0piuqiqllcqvtoqpn7bps0beiup1m@4ax.com:
>
>
>Aha. Ragnar is actually Brent. I knew it.
>
>
>DrG
ah.. the secret is out now. Brent has said I am everyone else. It
only figures that I must be the one person he left out - himself.
(just kidding)
| |
|
| It is tiresome to follow after your posts with a pooper scooper like
one would follow around circus animals.
You brought up the topic of optometrists doing surgery... so I brought
up the topic of opticians doing eye exams and prescriptions.
You muddied the topic, you didn't correct anything. I basically said
that lasik surgeons were ophthalmologists and you dragged a few
trivial exceptions to that into the discussion. This is a classic
technique of the malcontents. Millions of people have LASIK surgery,
a few of them have terrible results, so the rare cases get drummed up
to a frenzy. Lest we forget that the complication rate for contact
lenses is 66% higher than that of LASIK.
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:27:29 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com>
wrote:
>Ragnar Suomi <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:8ho7n0d94k1lna19hbp76loijtl9cdb6bi@4ax.com:
>
>
>This is alt.lasik.eyes and you talk about opticians in Canada.
>
>
>No. You made a wrong statement and I corrected you. You are indeed the
>baby Sandy said you were.
>
>
>
>I guess if I used a few cuss words you would think I had a spine, too. You
>sure are getting all cross lately, Ragnar. I guess all is not a bed of
>roses in LASIK LA-LA-LAND.
>
>DrG
The only one I see using cuss words lately is you. If you notice,
nobody is singing your praises lately.
You depended on the negativity of the malcontents to do your dirty
work for you for years. Once they stopped with their anti-lasik
attacks, you were forced to keep the fire burning yourself.
I don't think you even realize what you are doing. You should ask
someone whose opinion you value for their opinion. If they want to do
you a favor, they will be honest in their opinion.
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-18, 10:08 pm |
| Gee, do I have to say this again? You dissed DO's by saying that only MD's
can be ophthalmologists. Then you said that the only people who could do
refractive surgery were DO's and MD's. Well, you are certainly wrong on
that count as well.
Is there anybody left on earth you haven't insulted? Don't try to convince
me you haven't insulted your mom, either.
DrG
RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:mlg8n0h2f07m144bhgr7i9vo09aamu57e8@4ax.com:
> It is tiresome to follow after your posts with a pooper scooper like
> one would follow around circus animals.
>
> You brought up the topic of optometrists doing surgery... so I brought
> up the topic of opticians doing eye exams and prescriptions.
>
> You muddied the topic, you didn't correct anything. I basically said
> that lasik surgeons were ophthalmologists and you dragged a few
> trivial exceptions to that into the discussion. This is a classic
> technique of the malcontents. Millions of people have LASIK surgery,
> a few of them have terrible results, so the rare cases get drummed up
> to a frenzy. Lest we forget that the complication rate for contact
> lenses is 66% higher than that of LASIK.
>
>
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:27:29 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> The only one I see using cuss words lately is you. If you notice,
> nobody is singing your praises lately.
> You depended on the negativity of the malcontents to do your dirty
> work for you for years. Once they stopped with their anti-lasik
> attacks, you were forced to keep the fire burning yourself.
>
> I don't think you even realize what you are doing. You should ask
> someone whose opinion you value for their opinion. If they want to do
> you a favor, they will be honest in their opinion.
| |
| DoctorMyEye 2004-10-19, 11:10 am |
| Whoa! Where'd that lie come from?
The number of people who have an eye infection from wearing contacts,
that permanently reduces their acuity by two lines or more, is 3 in
100,000 cases.
The number of people who have permanently reduced BVA due to
refractive surgery is between 2 and 3 per hundred.
NO refractive surgeon that I know of attempts to trivialize the safety
of surgery like you do. Dr. G is right in saying that YOU are the
best thing that has happened to the anti-refractive surgery movement,
as your lies and spitefulness have reflected poorly on anyone who
takes the time to defend the merits of refractive surgery honestly.
RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<mlg8n0h2f07m144bhgr7i9vo09aamu57e8@4ax.com>...
> It is tiresome to follow after your posts with a pooper scooper like
> one would follow around circus animals.
>
> You brought up the topic of optometrists doing surgery... so I brought
> up the topic of opticians doing eye exams and prescriptions.
>
> You muddied the topic, you didn't correct anything. I basically said
> that lasik surgeons were ophthalmologists and you dragged a few
> trivial exceptions to that into the discussion. This is a classic
> technique of the malcontents. Millions of people have LASIK surgery,
> a few of them have terrible results, so the rare cases get drummed up
> to a frenzy. Lest we forget that the complication rate for contact
> lenses is 66% higher than that of LASIK.
>
>
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:27:29 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> The only one I see using cuss words lately is you. If you notice,
> nobody is singing your praises lately.
> You depended on the negativity of the malcontents to do your dirty
> work for you for years. Once they stopped with their anti-lasik
> attacks, you were forced to keep the fire burning yourself.
>
> I don't think you even realize what you are doing. You should ask
> someone whose opinion you value for their opinion. If they want to do
> you a favor, they will be honest in their opinion.
| |
| Ragnar Suomi 2004-10-19, 7:21 pm |
| While your petty attempt to split hairs and evade the topic entirely
might fool some people for a day, I have a long memory.
And by the way, I don't know why you dragged my mother into this.
That is yet another juvenile tactic to attack someone.
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 01:32:34 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>Gee, do I have to say this again? You dissed DO's by saying that only MD's
>can be ophthalmologists. Then you said that the only people who could do
>refractive surgery were DO's and MD's. Well, you are certainly wrong on
>that count as well.
>
>Is there anybody left on earth you haven't insulted? Don't try to convince
>me you haven't insulted your mom, either.
>
>DrG
>
>
| |
| Ragnar Suomi 2004-10-19, 7:21 pm |
| Geez.. and I just replied to a message about why OD's get picked on at
conventions.
You have taken great liberties with your statistics and attributed
them to things they don't cover.
This is an example of one of Glenn's statistics (the most negative
one) being plucked out and misrepresented. I would ask him to clarify
it again, but I don't see what the point is. He's explained that
statistic dozens of times if not hundreds of times, and some of you
nuts just ignore his clarification.
On 19 Oct 2004 06:08:59 -0700, doctor_my_eye@msn.com (DoctorMyEye)
wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Whoa! Where'd that lie come from?
>The number of people who have an eye infection from wearing contacts,
>that permanently reduces their acuity by two lines or more, is 3 in
>100,000 cases.
>
>The number of people who have permanently reduced BVA due to
>refractive surgery is between 2 and 3 per hundred.
>
>NO refractive surgeon that I know of attempts to trivialize the safety
>of surgery like you do. Dr. G is right in saying that YOU are the
>best thing that has happened to the anti-refractive surgery movement,
>as your lies and spitefulness have reflected poorly on anyone who
>takes the time to defend the merits of refractive surgery honestly.
>
>
>RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<mlg8n0h2f07m144bhgr7i9vo09aamu57e8@4ax.com>...
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-19, 7:21 pm |
| Ragnar Suomi <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:gksan0p7m9or9dg6fgftd4e1jagk0e2ddu@4ax.com:
> While your petty attempt to split hairs and evade the topic entirely
> might fool some people for a day, I have a long memory.
>
> And by the way, I don't know why you dragged my mother into this.
> That is yet another juvenile tactic to attack someone.
>
Thankfully for you, my memory is getting shorter.
I don't have to know your mother to give her my condolences.
DrG
| |
| ycdbsoya 2004-10-20, 11:12 am |
| Seems we've gotten a little far of field.
So, why would this happen? Anybody?
| |
| Ragnar Suomi 2004-10-20, 7:11 pm |
| On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 23:23:37 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>Ragnar Suomi <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:gksan0p7m9or9dg6fgftd4e1jagk0e2ddu@4ax.com:
>
>
>Thankfully for you, my memory is getting shorter.
>
>I don't have to know your mother to give her my condolences.
>
>
>DrG
I think you are going into premature Alzheimers. How old are you?
You and Minarik are two of a kind. The two of you and Mason should
open up a practice together. It would be like a Three Stooges sketch.
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-20, 7:11 pm |
| Ragnar Suomi <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:h04dn05f5kbkk1ctko05d9oidcmsbbmnjd@4ax.com:
>
> I think you are going into premature Alzheimers. How old are you?
>
> You and Minarik are two of a kind. The two of you and Mason should
> open up a practice together. It would be like a Three Stooges sketch.
Alzheimers is acquired, unlike yours which is congenital.
I think that you, RM, and Mike are shoe-ins for the Three Stooges.
DrG
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-20, 7:11 pm |
| RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:mlg8n0h2f07m144bhgr7i9vo09aamu57e8@4ax.com:
> The only one I see using cuss words lately is you. If you notice,
> nobody is singing your praises lately.
> You depended on the negativity of the malcontents to do your dirty
> work for you for years. Once they stopped with their anti-lasik
> attacks, you were forced to keep the fire burning yourself.
>
> I don't think you even realize what you are doing. You should ask
> someone whose opinion you value for their opinion. If they want to do
> you a favor, they will be honest in their opinion.
>
Come, now. Let's not engage in revisionist history.
You started the imbroglio as follows:
Ken Minarik made a post entitled: DrG's loss. After that you lost your
sphincter control and have continued to defecate in your pants time after
time. What's your problem? I don't need anybody to defend me against
someone who is incontinent.
DrG
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-20, 7:11 pm |
| RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:mlg8n0h2f07m144bhgr7i9vo09aamu57e8@4ax.com:
>
> I don't think you even realize what you are doing. You should ask
> someone whose opinion you value for their opinion. If they want to do
> you a favor, they will be honest in their opinion.
I know what I am doing. I don't know of anyone who has taken their own
life because of a contact lens related problem. Can you say that about
LASIK? Of course not.
DrG
| |
| Ragnar Suomi 2004-10-21, 2:08 am |
| Once again, you pulled the stunt of deleting the key element of the
previous post. You had mentioned that your memory was failing. I
don't know why you mentioned it but you did. Anyway, I suggested you
might have premature Alzheimers based upon your statement. It's not
that unusual. If you remember.. a certain U.S. president had
alzheimers.
Your thinking lately is far from being rational.
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 21:46:48 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>Ragnar Suomi <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:h04dn05f5kbkk1ctko05d9oidcmsbbmnjd@4ax.com:
>
>
>
>Alzheimers is acquired, unlike yours which is congenital.
>
>
>I think that you, RM, and Mike are shoe-ins for the Three Stooges.
>
>DrG
| |
| Ragnar Suomi 2004-10-21, 2:08 am |
| On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 23:26:30 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:mlg8n0h2f07m144bhgr7i9vo09aamu57e8@4ax.com:
>
>
>
>I know what I am doing. I don't know of anyone who has taken their own
>life because of a contact lens related problem. Can you say that about
>LASIK? Of course not.
>
>DrG
And yet the man took his life after you prescribed him contact
lenses... and failed to refer him to a mental health facility.
| |
| Ragnar Suomi 2004-10-21, 2:08 am |
| On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 23:21:42 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:mlg8n0h2f07m144bhgr7i9vo09aamu57e8@4ax.com:
>
>
>
>Come, now. Let's not engage in revisionist history.
>
>You started the imbroglio as follows:
>
>Ken Minarik made a post entitled: DrG's loss. After that you lost your
>sphincter control and have continued to defecate in your pants time after
>time. What's your problem? I don't need anybody to defend me against
>someone who is incontinent.
>
>DrG
This is getting frightening folks. I can't believe a doctor would
post such a message. You are a disgrace to your profession Dr.
Gemoules.
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-21, 7:12 pm |
| Ragnar Suomi <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:tqhen095ufv3n5tvs61heavcrtocegce50@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 23:21:42 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
> <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> This is getting frightening folks. I can't believe a doctor would
> post such a message. You are a disgrace to your profession Dr.
> Gemoules.
I am happy to be at your service, Mr. Depends, to give you a little taste
of your own medicine (double meaning, there).
DrG (mythical)
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-10-21, 7:12 pm |
|
>And yet the man took his life after you prescribed him contact
>lenses... and failed to refer him to a mental health facility.
FOUL! Com'on Rags, that is patently unfair and way out of line.
First of all, I don't know any optometrists who are trained to
diagnose that a person is suicidal, and I know for a fact that DrG is
not.. Secondly, DrG provided the patient with an improvement in
visual acuity. There is no way on earth that this combination would
add up to DrG being responsible for the patient receiving needed
mental health care. Furthermore, DrG had completed his optometric
assistance of this patient quite some time before the patient took his
own life.
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.
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-23, 7:10 pm |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in
news:2qbgn01n78h62ltkd3f0de4fq7cdr0lnok@4ax.com:
>
>
> FOUL! Com'on Rags, that is patently unfair and way out of line.
>
> First of all, I don't know any optometrists who are trained to
> diagnose that a person is suicidal, and I know for a fact that DrG is
> not.. Secondly, DrG provided the patient with an improvement in
> visual acuity. There is no way on earth that this combination would
> add up to DrG being responsible for the patient receiving needed
> mental health care. Furthermore, DrG had completed his optometric
> assistance of this patient quite some time before the patient took his
> own life.
>
> 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.
>
As a matter of fact, Glenn, if the details of the case were revealed, the
absurdity of Ragnar's statement would be very clear for all to see.
However, he does an adequate job of making himself look foolish.
As the second contact lens consultant to this patient, I can attest that
the individual had ordered a replacement lens approximately 4-6 months
after the initial visit. However, my feeling is that the patient was
marginally tolerant of lenses because of dry eyes. I also need to mention
that the individual also consulted surgical experts. It would appear that
all of the king's horses and all of the king's men couldn't restore the
corneas of this individual.
DrG
| |
| Sandy 2004-10-23, 10:08 pm |
| the_boydstons@hotmail.com (ycdbsoya) wrote in message news:<d6260d64.0410150927.6c112083@posting.google.com>...
> Had LASIK about 4 years ago, and have been plagued by Pretty bad NVD
> and daytime ghosting/smearing of images the entire time. Lately, it
> seems like my night vision is getting worse but my daytime vision is
> getting better. At Costco the other day, I passed by the Opt's booth
> and casually read the Snellen chart. What's weird is I could read the
> 20/15 line easily from the appropriate distance, when about 3-6 months
> before I couldn't cut the 20/30, 20/25 or 20/20 (+2 or 3) lines at
> all. Seems there's less visual garbage as well. But at night, my
> starbursts and CS seem worse.
>
> I won't look this gift horse in the mouth, but what could be happening
> here? Seems a little late for improvements.
I have a theory for this. My worse eye doesn't have a problem with
starbursts because it's so far out of focus. Could it be that as your
visual acuity has improved, it has sharpened up to the point that you
can now see the starbursts better than ever before? My better eye is
near plano and the starbursts are long and distinct.
| |
| DoctorMyEye 2004-10-24, 11:07 am |
| Your theory is correct, and it is based on the true facts of ocular
anatomy. When an eye is corrected to a "Plano" prescription, the
light entering the eye is hitting directly on the fovea (the center of
the macula). The macula has two and a half million receptors (plus or
minus a hundred thousand or so) and those tightly packed cells can
pick -up or sense distortion much better than any other part of the
eye. If someone is not corrected well, the light enters the eye and
scatters over the peri-macular area, where the brain has much less
ability to see distortion.
sandy@savvysneaks.com (Sandy) wrote in message news:<1f704412.0410231844.130c35eb@posting.google.com>...
> the_boydstons@hotmail.com (ycdbsoya) wrote in message news:<d6260d64.0410150927.6c112083@posting.google.com>...
>
> I have a theory for this. My worse eye doesn't have a problem with
> starbursts because it's so far out of focus. Could it be that as your
> visual acuity has improved, it has sharpened up to the point that you
> can now see the starbursts better than ever before? My better eye is
> near plano and the starbursts are long and distinct.
|
| |
|
|