Lasik Eyes Surgery - Non-ophthalmologists at ophthalmic meetings

Author

Non-ophthalmologists at ophthalmic meetings

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2004-10-31, 7:11 pm

>> but isn't that one of those AAO meetings
>
>Why wouldn't they? They let patients like me in.

The AAO decided to not allow optometrists to their meetings because
optometric lobbyists presented OD's attendance at Continued Medical
Education (CME) courses as partial justification for state
legislatures and the Veteran's Administration to allow optometrists to
provide higher levels of ocular care, such as laser surgery. ASCRS is
applying similar restrictions.

The acts of these largest of ophthalmic groups make it clear that
those who are perceived to be attacking ophthalmology on one front or
another are no longer going to be welcomed to attend their meetings.
The obvious next step is that those who assist the perceived
antagonists will be quietly, but firmly, sanctioned. In the case of
OD v. MD, it may be yet another turf battle, but the ophthalmic groups
are really ticked off and are looking at their meetings with a new
perspective.

Due to the public acts of some of the patients who have attended
ophthalmic meetings worldwide, I would not be the least bit surprised
that all organizations are re-evaluating the wisdom of allowing
attendance of those who are not directly affiliated with
manufacturers, ophthalmologists, and the press. But the ophthalmic
groups are not the only ones who decide what happens at these meetings
and are not the only ones who have a reason to look anew at who
attends these meetings.

One company who manufacturers pharmaceuticals, intraocular lenses, and
excimer lasers, donated about $1.6 million toward the cost of running
the AAO New Orleans convention. It seems reasonable that this company
would not be too pleased if the AAO allowed a patient who has been
quoted in the press as calling for all of this company's lasers to be
removed from service to attend a meeting to which it has contributed
so greatly. Especially when this person is not legitimately
affiliated with a manufacturer, ophthalmologist, or the press.

A few years ago I had difficulty attending an ophthalmic convention
because our organization was considered too "controversial".
Fortunately, I am now recognized as a member of the press, plus the
controversy of our organization is better tolerated these days.
Others may have similar difficulty.

I suppose if people like Keller want to have their own convention,
they can try to find their own sponsors and presenters. That is what
the optometrists are doing.

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

2004-10-31, 7:11 pm

Logical decisions on the part of AAO, IMO. Optometry should follow the
same logic.

DrG

Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in
news:0p6ao093anr22suu1dpgqnopsq5j708mgk@4ax.com:

>
> The AAO decided to not allow optometrists to their meetings because
> optometric lobbyists presented OD's attendance at Continued Medical
> education (CME) courses as partial justification for state
> legislatures and the Veteran's Administration to allow optometrists to
> provide higher levels of ocular care, such as laser surgery. ASCRS is
> applying similar restrictions.
>
> The acts of these largest of ophthalmic groups make it clear that
> those who are perceived to be attacking ophthalmology on one front or
> another are no longer going to be welcomed to attend their meetings.
> The obvious next step is that those who assist the perceived
> antagonists will be quietly, but firmly, sanctioned. In the case of
> OD v. MD, it may be yet another turf battle, but the ophthalmic groups
> are really ticked off and are looking at their meetings with a new
> perspective.
>
> Due to the public acts of some of the patients who have attended
> ophthalmic meetings worldwide, I would not be the least bit surprised
> that all organizations are re-evaluating the wisdom of allowing
> attendance of those who are not directly affiliated with
> manufacturers, ophthalmologists, and the press. But the ophthalmic
> groups are not the only ones who decide what happens at these meetings
> and are not the only ones who have a reason to look anew at who
> attends these meetings.
>
> One company who manufacturers pharmaceuticals, intraocular lenses, and
> excimer lasers, donated about $1.6 million toward the cost of running
> the AAO New Orleans convention. It seems reasonable that this company
> would not be too pleased if the AAO allowed a patient who has been
> quoted in the press as calling for all of this company's lasers to be
> removed from service to attend a meeting to which it has contributed
> so greatly. Especially when this person is not legitimately
> affiliated with a manufacturer, ophthalmologist, or the press.
>
> A few years ago I had difficulty attending an ophthalmic convention
> because our organization was considered too "controversial".
> Fortunately, I am now recognized as a member of the press, plus the
> controversy of our organization is better tolerated these days.
> Others may have similar difficulty.
>
> I suppose if people like Keller want to have their own convention,
> they can try to find their own sponsors and presenters. That is what
> the optometrists are doing.
>
> 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.
>

Sandy

2004-10-31, 10:08 pm

Naw, theirs are more fun. I think the dinner cruises and delicious
lunches with compassionate docs have spoiled me. I do have a conflict
with the next meeting, which coincides with a shoe show....don't know
which to plan for.

>
> I suppose if people like Keller want to have their own convention,
> they can try to find their own sponsors and presenters. That is what
> the optometrists are doing.
>
> 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.

Ragnar Suomi

2004-11-01, 2:09 am

Optometrist luncheons and shoe conventions... how exciting!!!!
You really know how to live it up!

On 31 Oct 2004 19:51:39 -0800, sandy@savvysneaks.com (Sandy) wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Naw, theirs are more fun. I think the dinner cruises and delicious
>lunches with compassionate docs have spoiled me. I do have a conflict
>with the next meeting, which coincides with a shoe show....don't know
>which to plan for.
>

Rebecca

2004-11-01, 11:09 am

Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message news:<0p6ao093anr22suu1dpgqnopsq5j708mgk@4ax.com>...

> Due to the public acts of some of the patients who have attended
> ophthalmic meetings worldwide, I would not be the least bit surprised
> that all organizations are re-evaluating the wisdom of allowing
> attendance of those who are not directly affiliated with
> manufacturers, ophthalmologists, and the press. But the ophthalmic
> groups are not the only ones who decide what happens at these meetings
> and are not the only ones who have a reason to look anew at who
> attends these meetings.
>
> One company who manufacturers pharmaceuticals, intraocular lenses, and
> excimer lasers, donated about $1.6 million toward the cost of running
> the AAO New Orleans convention. It seems reasonable that this company
> would not be too pleased if the AAO allowed a patient who has been
> quoted in the press as calling for all of this company's lasers to be
> removed from service to attend a meeting to which it has contributed
> so greatly. Especially when this person is not legitimately
> affiliated with a manufacturer, ophthalmologist, or the press.

Dear Glenn:

Not much point pretending to be subtle by not naming me.

But it's utter nonsense if you ask me.

Most people really are sensible. Most conference organisers don't
exclude people on the basis of their opinions. And no credible
conference organiser would ever sell the right to determine who the
attendees are.

I suppose I ought to be flattered at the suggestion – mistaken as I
believe it is – that my little website and a cautiously worded
consumer alert could have even come to the notice of movers and
shakers, much less have caused them enough concern to attempt to
huddle with conference organisers worldwide and figure out how to
protect themselves. Highly amusing picture, but common sense and facts
contradict it. As for the press, we all know how difficult it is to
prevent being edited or creatively reworded on occasion. My position
statement to the Times was the same as what I've put on the website.

I did attend some conferences this year (AAO not among them), two of
which because I had been invited to speak and the third, ESCRS, for
the usual reasons people attend meetings, to see people and attend
meetings. I checked with my ophthalmologist friends before registering
as to whether it was appropriate and they seemed to think it was
perfectly natural that I would be there. I even (smile) made frequent
use of the Alcon-sponsored internet cafe, all without being lynched or
even getting a single dirty look.

Like I said, most people really are sensible.

Rebecca

2004-11-01, 11:09 am

Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message news:<0p6ao093anr22suu1dpgqnopsq5j708mgk@4ax.com>...

> Especially when this person is not legitimately
> affiliated with a manufacturer, ophthalmologist, or the press.

Nor even illegitimately. ;)

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2004-11-01, 7:12 pm

Rebecca, I respect that it is your choice whether or not you want to
identify yourself or the manufacturer in this situation.

When I first started attending the conferences as a CRSQA
representative I saw no overt problems and felt welcomed in virtually
all circles, albeit with a sense of curiosity more than acceptance.
Eventually I was an invited presenter and even a regular contributor
to a trade magazine. Then some statements a while back that were not
terribly popular among the powers-that-be changed things rather
quickly.

It seems easy to get lost among the 29,000 people who attend these
conventions, but tick off the wrong people and suddenly you stick out
like a sore thumb. Of course, CRSQA has maintained a rather high
profile and does tend to stick out anyway.

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.

DoctorMyEye

2004-11-01, 10:08 pm

As you know, Glenn, this is a very heavily salted wound right now.
The relationship between optometry and ophthalmology has seemed to ebb
and flow during the past 100 years, but I can't think of a time in the
last 25 years that the relationship has been this bad.

You are right when you state that optometry has successfully argued in
the various state houses that our level of education should allow us
to have more prescribing priviledges and perhaps even perform laser
procedures.

I sincerely believe that "locking the doors" to optometrists is akin
to biting off one's own nose to spite his face. Organized optometry
has gone to each of the 50 state legislatures and won stronger
optometry legislation by presenting strong and valid arguments that
the family optometrist who practices full-scope optometric care is a
valuable asset to any state, as he provides very effective and
cost-effective primary eye care. Going after the educational programs
that helped educate those practitioners is an affront to common
decency and is a slap in the face to the consumer. In the end, the
consumer will pay dearly for these "turf wars" that are all about
protecting the definitions of "optometry" and "ophthalmology" as they
were defined in the 1950s or 1960s.

This turf war is one of the primary reasons I got "booted" from SE. I
went into a lengthy discussion on SE of how an ophthalmology resident
spends most of his residency learning his surgical techniques and
managing eye diseases, while the optometrist spends four years in
graduate school studying a lot more optics and physics than an
opthalmologist will ever need to know. I often explain to patients
that going to an ophthalmologist for an entry-level eye examination is
like going to a heart surgeon for a physical. Sure, he can do
one...but what the hell is a heart surgeon doing giving physicals?

Ironically, just about one month after I made this argument on SE and
got booted, Doctor Neil Gailmard made a similar argument on his
Optometric Management Practice Management Tips Newsletter. He was
crucified by the ophthalmology press and forced to write a
half-hearted retraction a few days later.

When the most recent United States Senate military appropriations bill
was being rushed through Congress, there was a last minute attempt to
amend the "Money for Iraq" bill with an amendment presented by
lame-duck Illinois Senator Peter Fitzgerald. As you already know,
Fitzgerald has decided not to run for re-election and his expected
successor will be wonderkind Barack Obama.

Fitgerald's "sneek attack" amendment was an attempt by organized
ophthalmology to quickly enter into the Congressional Record a law
that defines all uses of lasers as the practice of surgery. The
amendment was so hastily written and blatantly an attempt to repel the
inroads that organized optometry have made in the VA, that the
amendment was quickly struck from the appropriations bill once the
lobbyists from the optometry support group got ahold of their
pro-optometry supporters in the Senate.

That is when the proverbial "shit hit the fan" and the optometrists
were banned from the AAO. The "small potato" grief that Sandy, Brent,
Dr. G or I might ever cause to the practice of ophthalmology has never
really affected these turf wars, in my humble opinion. When you start
looking at Senate Bills and legal definitions of professions that will
eggect all of our lives for years to come, you realize that the "war"
has to do with much more than LASIK.

Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message news:<0p6ao093anr22suu1dpgqnopsq5j708mgk@4ax.com>...
>
> The AAO decided to not allow optometrists to their meetings because
> optometric lobbyists presented OD's attendance at Continued Medical
> education (CME) courses as partial justification for state
> legislatures and the Veteran's Administration to allow optometrists to
> provide higher levels of ocular care, such as laser surgery. ASCRS is
> applying similar restrictions.
>
> The acts of these largest of ophthalmic groups make it clear that
> those who are perceived to be attacking ophthalmology on one front or
> another are no longer going to be welcomed to attend their meetings.
> The obvious next step is that those who assist the perceived
> antagonists will be quietly, but firmly, sanctioned. In the case of
> OD v. MD, it may be yet another turf battle, but the ophthalmic groups
> are really ticked off and are looking at their meetings with a new
> perspective.
>
> Due to the public acts of some of the patients who have attended
> ophthalmic meetings worldwide, I would not be the least bit surprised
> that all organizations are re-evaluating the wisdom of allowing
> attendance of those who are not directly affiliated with
> manufacturers, ophthalmologists, and the press. But the ophthalmic
> groups are not the only ones who decide what happens at these meetings
> and are not the only ones who have a reason to look anew at who
> attends these meetings.
>
> One company who manufacturers pharmaceuticals, intraocular lenses, and
> excimer lasers, donated about $1.6 million toward the cost of running
> the AAO New Orleans convention. It seems reasonable that this company
> would not be too pleased if the AAO allowed a patient who has been
> quoted in the press as calling for all of this company's lasers to be
> removed from service to attend a meeting to which it has contributed
> so greatly. Especially when this person is not legitimately
> affiliated with a manufacturer, ophthalmologist, or the press.
>
> A few years ago I had difficulty attending an ophthalmic convention
> because our organization was considered too "controversial".
> Fortunately, I am now recognized as a member of the press, plus the
> controversy of our organization is better tolerated these days.
> Others may have similar difficulty.
>
> I suppose if people like Keller want to have their own convention,
> they can try to find their own sponsors and presenters. That is what
> the optometrists are doing.
>
> 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

2004-11-02, 11:14 am

Ken,

I am sorry to have to say this, but you leave me with no choice. Please
refrain from including me on any of your lists, and please refrain from
associating yourself with me in any way. I thought that it was generally
understood that one of the principal reasons I left SE was because of your
behavior. Ron Link begged me to return, but he didn't have the spine to
give you the boot.

Recently, you did something even more offensive, which was to take a
personal and heartfelt tribute about a tragic event concerning one of my
patients - someone who was known in the LME community, and turning it into
political fodder by reposting it here. Shame on you.

Furthermore, you have stated that we have shared email conversations about
post-refractive surgery patients. Except for giving you my business
philosophy on specialty contact lenses, I must deny that any such
conversations or correspondence took place. You have implied a
relationship between us that has never and does not exist. People who know
me simply know better.

By all means continue to play your trumpet and wave your baton, but not at
my expense. Relationships have never been good between organized
ophthalmology and organized optometry, and it frankly never occurred to me
that I would have been welcomed in any AAO or ASCRS meeting, unless I were
employed by an M.D. Nobody can keep a monopoly on knowledge

DrG

doctor_my_eye@msn.com (DoctorMyEye) wrote in
news:79e0f419.0411011838.34cf21dd@posting.google.com:

> As you know, Glenn, this is a very heavily salted wound right now.
> The relationship between optometry and ophthalmology has seemed to ebb
> and flow during the past 100 years, but I can't think of a time in the
> last 25 years that the relationship has been this bad.
>
> You are right when you state that optometry has successfully argued in
> the various state houses that our level of education should allow us
> to have more prescribing priviledges and perhaps even perform laser
> procedures.
>
> I sincerely believe that "locking the doors" to optometrists is akin
> to biting off one's own nose to spite his face. Organized optometry
> has gone to each of the 50 state legislatures and won stronger
> optometry legislation by presenting strong and valid arguments that
> the family optometrist who practices full-scope optometric care is a
> valuable asset to any state, as he provides very effective and
> cost-effective primary eye care. Going after the educational programs
> that helped educate those practitioners is an affront to common
> decency and is a slap in the face to the consumer. In the end, the
> consumer will pay dearly for these "turf wars" that are all about
> protecting the definitions of "optometry" and "ophthalmology" as they
> were defined in the 1950s or 1960s.
>
> This turf war is one of the primary reasons I got "booted" from SE. I
> went into a lengthy discussion on SE of how an ophthalmology resident
> spends most of his residency learning his surgical techniques and
> managing eye diseases, while the optometrist spends four years in
> graduate school studying a lot more optics and physics than an
> opthalmologist will ever need to know. I often explain to patients
> that going to an ophthalmologist for an entry-level eye examination is
> like going to a heart surgeon for a physical. Sure, he can do
> one...but what the hell is a heart surgeon doing giving physicals?
>
> Ironically, just about one month after I made this argument on SE and
> got booted, Doctor Neil Gailmard made a similar argument on his
> Optometric Management Practice Management Tips Newsletter. He was
> crucified by the ophthalmology press and forced to write a
> half-hearted retraction a few days later.
>
> When the most recent United States Senate military appropriations bill
> was being rushed through Congress, there was a last minute attempt to
> amend the "Money for Iraq" bill with an amendment presented by
> lame-duck Illinois Senator Peter Fitzgerald. As you already know,
> Fitzgerald has decided not to run for re-election and his expected
> successor will be wonderkind Barack Obama.
>
> Fitgerald's "sneek attack" amendment was an attempt by organized
> ophthalmology to quickly enter into the Congressional Record a law
> that defines all uses of lasers as the practice of surgery. The
> amendment was so hastily written and blatantly an attempt to repel the
> inroads that organized optometry have made in the VA, that the
> amendment was quickly struck from the appropriations bill once the
> lobbyists from the optometry support group got ahold of their
> pro-optometry supporters in the Senate.
>
> That is when the proverbial "shit hit the fan" and the optometrists
> were banned from the AAO. The "small potato" grief that Sandy, Brent,
> Dr. G or I might ever cause to the practice of ophthalmology has never
> really affected these turf wars, in my humble opinion. When you start
> looking at Senate Bills and legal definitions of professions that will
> eggect all of our lives for years to come, you realize that the "war"
> has to do with much more than LASIK.
>
>
>
> Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in
> message news:<0p6ao093anr22suu1dpgqnopsq5j708mgk@4ax.com>...
>

Ragnar Suomi

2004-11-02, 11:14 am

I have a question about your physics comment. Physics covers quite a
wide range of topics including electricity, forces, and optics. I
don't doubt that you studied the optical aspects of physics, but did
you also do the electrical and force aspects? That is not an easy
area of study. I took the heavy duty physics that was required for
both electrical and civil/structural engineering. Not easy stuff. I
wonder if the fireman had physics.

Also, I think you should say "general" eye exam rather than "entry
level" eye exam. I think entry-level sounds like something that is
insignificant.
I must add one more comment to that though... way way back when I was
about 20 years old, I had asked my OD at the time about RK. He did a
special examination in a totally dark room where he put on some weird
goggles and had some equipment I have never seen before or since. He
claimed I had macular degeneration and charged me a fortune for that
examination. His diagnosis of macular degeneration was completely
wrong. But I must say that the OD who did that exam did a fantastic
job of fitting RGP lenses.

On 1 Nov 2004 18:38:25 -0800, doctor_my_eye@msn.com (DoctorMyEye)
wrote:

>
>This turf war is one of the primary reasons I got "booted" from SE. I
>went into a lengthy discussion on SE of how an ophthalmology resident
>spends most of his residency learning his surgical techniques and
>managing eye diseases, while the optometrist spends four years in
>graduate school studying a lot more optics and physics than an
>opthalmologist will ever need to know. I often explain to patients
>that going to an ophthalmologist for an entry-level eye examination is
>like going to a heart surgeon for a physical. Sure, he can do
>one...but what the hell is a heart surgeon doing giving physicals?
>

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2004-11-02, 11:14 am

It looks like another of those somewhat rare occasions that we agree
on something. Ophthalmology has for as long as I've been involved
with them attempted to prove that you can sink the other end of the
boat. The current turn of events in the never-ending turf battle
between ophthalmology and optometry is really very sad.

I agree that the fervor of these battles does revolve around laser eye
surgery, but not necessarily LASIK. Even with Intralase, the flap is
considered an incision by most states and optometrists are not able to
perform LASIK, however for several years now Oklahoma optometrists
have been able to perform PRK and similar laser-only eye surgeries.
Much to organized ophthalmology's chagrin, the OK ODs have been doing
PRK quite well. There is now clear evidence that ODs can do surgery,
and that rightfully has ophthalmology nervous. Whether or not
optometrists should do surgery is another issue altogether.

We have these concerns internally too. CRSQA's governing board has
optometrists and ophthalmologists, including an OK optometrist who
performs PRK. The only solution to the problem that we have found is
to simply try to get along.

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.

Ragnar Suomi

2004-11-02, 7:12 pm

On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 16:52:41 GMT, Glenn - USAEyes.org
<glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:

>
>I agree that the fervor of these battles does revolve around laser eye
>surgery, but not necessarily LASIK. Even with Intralase, the flap is
>considered an incision by most states and optometrists are not able to
>perform LASIK, however for several years now Oklahoma optometrists
>have been able to perform PRK and similar laser-only eye surgeries.
>Much to organized ophthalmology's chagrin, the OK ODs have been doing
>PRK quite well. There is now clear evidence that ODs can do surgery,
>and that rightfully has ophthalmology nervous. Whether or not
>optometrists should do surgery is another issue altogether.
>

I still find it ironic that the some of the same people arguing that
optometrists should be permitted to do LASIK are also condemning
LASIK. They want their Kate and Edith too.
If they let OD's do lasik in Texas, a certain Texas OD would sign a
lease on a laser system tomorrow!

2004-11-02, 10:08 pm

On 1 Nov 2004 18:38:25 -0800, doctor_my_eye@msn.com (DoctorMyEye)
wrote:

>
>This turf war is one of the primary reasons I got "booted" from SE. I
>went into a lengthy discussion on SE of how an ophthalmology resident
>spends most of his residency learning his surgical techniques and
>managing eye diseases, while the optometrist spends four years in
>graduate school studying a lot more optics and physics than an
>opthalmologist will ever need to know. I often explain to patients
>that going to an ophthalmologist for an entry-level eye examination is
>like going to a heart surgeon for a physical. Sure, he can do
>one...but what the hell is a heart surgeon doing giving physicals?
>

In a previous message, I suggested that you call it a "general" exam
instead of "entry-level". Another good term would be "initial" exam.
Entry-Level sounds like something to do with an intern and president
Clinton.

DoctorMyEye

2004-11-02, 10:08 pm

We both seem to have "selective amnesia" about the time we were both
on SE. I remember Ron Link feeding me his anger and disgust that you
were using his website to sell your own practice. I remember him
playing very heavily the cards that new blood would join SE only if
Leukoma was "muzzled" from his selling. So, I was recruited to
assasinate you in that public forum, and you were "begged to return".
One of the following statements is true: (1) I am lying. or (2) You
are lying. Or, (3). We were played against each other to forward
Ron's personal agenda at that time.

"Dr. Leukoma" <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote in message news:<Xns95954E3C190A6drgleukomacom@204.127.204.17>...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Ken,
>
> I am sorry to have to say this, but you leave me with no choice. Please
> refrain from including me on any of your lists, and please refrain from
> associating yourself with me in any way. I thought that it was generally
> understood that one of the principal reasons I left SE was because of your
> behavior. Ron Link begged me to return, but he didn't have the spine to
> give you the boot.
>
> Recently, you did something even more offensive, which was to take a
> personal and heartfelt tribute about a tragic event concerning one of my
> patients - someone who was known in the LME community, and turning it into
> political fodder by reposting it here. Shame on you.
>
> Furthermore, you have stated that we have shared email conversations about
> post-refractive surgery patients. Except for giving you my business
> philosophy on specialty contact lenses, I must deny that any such
> conversations or correspondence took place. You have implied a
> relationship between us that has never and does not exist. People who know
> me simply know better.
>
> By all means continue to play your trumpet and wave your baton, but not at
> my expense. Relationships have never been good between organized
> ophthalmology and organized optometry, and it frankly never occurred to me
> that I would have been welcomed in any AAO or ASCRS meeting, unless I were
> employed by an M.D. Nobody can keep a monopoly on knowledge
>
> DrG
>
>
>
> doctor_my_eye@msn.com (DoctorMyEye) wrote in
> news:79e0f419.0411011838.34cf21dd@posting.google.com:
>

Dr. Leukoma

2004-11-02, 10:08 pm

doctor_my_eye@msn.com (DoctorMyEye) wrote in
news:79e0f419.0411021819.37e7bcf@posting.google.com:

> We both seem to have "selective amnesia" about the time we were both
> on SE. I remember Ron Link feeding me his anger and disgust that you
> were using his website to sell your own practice. I remember him
> playing very heavily the cards that new blood would join SE only if
> Leukoma was "muzzled" from his selling. So, I was recruited to
> assasinate you in that public forum, and you were "begged to return".
> One of the following statements is true: (1) I am lying. or (2) You
> are lying. Or, (3). We were played against each other to forward
> Ron's personal agenda at that time.
>

I don't have 'selective amnesia.' I never used SE to 'sell' my practice.
Ron Link alone knew my identity. I did not publish my personal
information. I did not publish my website, because it did not exist for
the first two years of my involvement with SE. As a matter of fact, I
still do not promote my website even in this NG. People who wanted to
visit me had to obtain my contact information from Ron Link, or from each
other. What I did 'sell' was the idea that contact lenses could
effectively 'treat' the problems of refractive surgery. I furthermore
'sold' the idea that this could be accomplished using standard fitting
techniques with which every OD was familiar, without a heavy investment in
new hardware and software.

I think your admission that you were recruited as a pawn to be used against
me says it all. Ron Link's 'anger and disgust' was misdirected, IMO. All
I know is that I logged many hours into that website without any thoughts
other than the possible appreciation for what I was able to contribute.

DrG

2004-11-03, 7:12 pm

Sounds to me like a case of Sleaze, Slieazer, and Sleaziest. All
three of you are disgusting and should be ashamed of yourselves. At
least Ron has the excuse that he is nothing but a former fireman. Two
doctors behaving in such an underhanded and juvenile way is sickening.

On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 03:05:53 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:

>doctor_my_eye@msn.com (DoctorMyEye) wrote in
>news:79e0f419.0411021819.37e7bcf@posting.google.com:
>
>
>I don't have 'selective amnesia.' I never used SE to 'sell' my practice.
>Ron Link alone knew my identity. I did not publish my personal
>information. I did not publish my website, because it did not exist for
>the first two years of my involvement with SE. As a matter of fact, I
>still do not promote my website even in this NG. People who wanted to
>visit me had to obtain my contact information from Ron Link, or from each
>other. What I did 'sell' was the idea that contact lenses could
>effectively 'treat' the problems of refractive surgery. I furthermore
>'sold' the idea that this could be accomplished using standard fitting
>techniques with which every OD was familiar, without a heavy investment in
>new hardware and software.
>
>I think your admission that you were recruited as a pawn to be used against
>me says it all. Ron Link's 'anger and disgust' was misdirected, IMO. All
>I know is that I logged many hours into that website without any thoughts
>other than the possible appreciation for what I was able to contribute.
>
>
>DrG

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2004-11-03, 7:12 pm

I may not agree with him, but you have to give Ragnar credit. He
insulted three birds with one stone, and offended countless others in
the process.

Dr. Leukoma

2004-11-03, 7:12 pm

Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in
news:jq8io017pjv7bl37e5t1b05fbtlffhpdrm@4ax.com:

> I may not agree with him, but you have to give Ragnar credit. He
> insulted three birds with one stone, and offended countless others in
> the process.

Sorry. I kill-filed him long ago, along with Brent. I still think they
are one and the same person, or at least have the same disorder.

DrG

Ragnar Suomi

2004-11-04, 2:10 am

I don't know who the countless others were.. but the 3 childish nuts
did themselves in, I can't take credit for the self-destructive
rantings of Minarik, Link, and Gemoules. "Birds of a feather..."

On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 18:29:29 GMT, Glenn - USAEyes.org
<glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:

>I may not agree with him, but you have to give Ragnar credit. He
>insulted three birds with one stone, and offended countless others in
>the process.

Ragnar Suomi

2004-11-04, 2:10 am

To anyone who belives that Dr. Gemoules kill filed anyone including
Brent... I have some swamp land to sell you.
Actually, it's kind of funny to visualize Dr. Gemoules sitting there
with his eyes closed shut and his hands over his ears to shield him
from reality. He's probably wearing an aluminum foil hat to shield
him from the mind control of the aliens too.

It's scary to think that he has killfiled me. How is he going to ever
realize what an XXX he is making of himself?

On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 22:54:35 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:

>Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in
>news:jq8io017pjv7bl37e5t1b05fbtlffhpdrm@4ax.com:
>
>
>
>Sorry. I kill-filed him long ago, along with Brent. I still think they
>are one and the same person, or at least have the same disorder.
>
>
>DrG