|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > November 2004 > Happy Lasik patient
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 |
Happy Lasik patient
|
|
| RedRipeApple 2004-11-03, 11:10 am |
| It has been almost 2 years since my LASIK surgery and I see fantastic. No side
effects, problems, etc. I don't have dry eye or halos or bad night vision. I
see perfect, like I was born this way. Just a message to those considering
LASIK but get scared by all the negative posts - trust me, there are A LOT more
people like me than those who had problems. :-)
LOVIN' LASIK
Apple
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-11-03, 7:12 pm |
| Glad to hear of your great result.
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.
| |
| TheVisionThing 2004-11-03, 7:12 pm |
| Just curious - what was your original prescription?
Wayne C.
| |
| lasik_experience 2004-11-03, 7:12 pm |
| RedRipeApple wrote:
> It has been almost 2 years since my LASIK surgery and I see fantastic. No
> side effects, problems, etc. I don't have dry eye or halos or bad night
> vision. I see perfect, like I was born this way. Just a message to those
> considering LASIK but get scared by all the negative posts - trust me,
> there are A LOT more people like me than those who had problems. :-)
> LOVIN' LASIK
> Apple
I am pleased (more like elated) that your surgery went well. Please don't
make the mistake of minimizing the danger. Can you imagine the possible
complications that could have happened in your surgery? Do you understand
the reasoning behind the release of liability written into lasik contracts?
If people want to offer experimental surgery - no problem. They just need
to held 100% liable for all complications.
| |
|
| Hi Apple,
Great to hear of your results and hope they continue to be this good.
Regards
Wal
"RedRipeApple" <redripeapple@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041103102505.08281.00000003@mb-m04.aol.com...
> It has been almost 2 years since my LASIK surgery and I see fantastic. No
side
> effects, problems, etc. I don't have dry eye or halos or bad night vision.
I
> see perfect, like I was born this way. Just a message to those considering
> LASIK but get scared by all the negative posts - trust me, there are A LOT
more
> people like me than those who had problems. :-)
> LOVIN' LASIK
> Apple
| |
| C. Gates 2004-11-03, 7:12 pm |
|
RedRipeApple wrote:
> Just a message to those considering
> LASIK but get scared by all the negative posts - trust me, there are A LOT more
> people like me than those who had problems. :-)
> LOVIN' LASIK
> Apple
Great that you are delighted with your results.
The bottom line still comes down the the fact that far too many people
suffer permanent damage as a result of laisk surgery. Even if the
percentage is only two percent, this is still an excessive, and
disgraceful, casualty rate. Yes, 98 successes out of 100 are a "LOT"
more people than 2 out of 100.
The one thing that seems to get out of proportion is not the percentage
of successes vs percentage of bad outcomes -- but the huge impact of the
bad outcomes. For the "successes," basically their life is about the
same as before, but without the bother of glasses or contacts. But for
that unlucky 2 percent, the impact is often life changing -- and
lifelong. The more fortunate ones might not be able to drive at night,
and this can impact their job, especially if they have to travel. Others
have continuous pain and lifelong disability. People have damm good
reason to be scared by the negative posts. Although bad outcomes are
very few, the consequences of bad outcomes are truly something a wise
person should be very, very scared of. And fully aware of. The odds are
low (if you want to look at it that way) but the price of losing is
absolutely dreadful. That's why so many people have such a strong
commitment to preventing just one more needless casualty.
Endorsements from folks like yourself are one of the most illogical
reasons for any candidate to decide to have the surgery. Lasik is not a
popularity contest, nor is it a random set of odds. Risk factors for
every individaul are completely different, and the outcomes are not
simply a matter of random happenstance. It's not a lottery where many
people win and a few lose. Like a horserace, the outcome can be
handicapped -- not always successfully -- but still predicted with some
degree of success.
| |
| RedRipeApple 2004-11-04, 2:10 am |
| I agree that you should be sure you are a candidate for LASIK and you go to a
reputable surgeon.
However I disagree with people stressing over the complications with this
MIRACLE surgery. I'll tell you why: Everyday people elect to have surgery -
including plastic surgery - EVERY DAY all over the world. All kinds of
complications happen, even DEATH - but no one stops getting facelifts,
liposuction or any of the things just for the sake of feeling good. Why not get
a LOW RISK surgery for the sake of PERFECT VISION?
I took my eye test at the DMV today as it was renewel time. I see 20/15
| |
|
| > Endorsements from folks like yourself are one of the most illogical
> reasons for any candidate to decide to have the surgery. Lasik is not a
> popularity contest, nor is it a random set of odds. Risk factors for
> every individaul are completely different, and the outcomes are not
> simply a matter of random happenstance. It's not a lottery where many
> people win and a few lose. Like a horserace, the outcome can be
> handicapped -- not always successfully -- but still predicted with some
> degree of success.
When I am 2 years post op I will be telling everyone how good I feel too.
Actually I already tell everyone I see how great it is.
Do you really think that the 98% of great lasik cases should stay quiet so
the world listens only to the 2 percent left over?
Wal
| |
| lasik_experience 2004-11-04, 7:08 am |
| C. Gates wrote:
>
> The one thing that seems to get out of proportion is not the percentage
> of successes vs percentage of bad outcomes -- but the huge impact of the
> bad outcomes. For the "successes," basically their life is about the
> same as before, but without the bother of glasses or contacts. But for
> that unlucky 2 percent, the impact is often life changing -- and
> lifelong. The more fortunate ones might not be able to drive at night,
> and this can impact their job, especially if they have to travel. Others
> have continuous pain and lifelong disability. People have damm good
> reason to be scared by the negative posts. Although bad outcomes are
> very few, the consequences of bad outcomes are truly something a wise
> person should be very, very scared of. And fully aware of. The odds are
> low (if you want to look at it that way) but the price of losing is
> absolutely dreadful. That's why so many people have such a strong
> commitment to preventing just one more needless casualty.
>
>
Jeez, I wish I had your skill at communication. Even so, looks like the
people who responed are missing the message:
"But for that unlucky 2 percent, the impact is often life changing -- and
lifelong."
Personally, I would love to see this procedure outlawed. Do you know of any
organized political action group working to rein-in this business?
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-11-04, 7:08 am |
| "Wal" <notmewally@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:2uui7sF2eosmkU1@uni-berlin.de:
>
> When I am 2 years post op I will be telling everyone how good I feel
> too. Actually I already tell everyone I see how great it is.
> Do you really think that the 98% of great lasik cases should stay
> quiet so the world listens only to the 2 percent left over?
>
> Wal
>
>
Hi Wal.
I have been in the eye care business for 20+ years. Extended wear contact
lenses were nearly banned because of ulcerative keratitis, the incidence of
which is about 1/500 annually for people who sleep in their lenses (the
incidence is much lower with new silicone-hydrogel technology). Given this
low rate, many corneal specialists railed and campaigned against sleeping
in contact lenses. So, I think that 2% or 3% is a statistically
significant number, especially when it concerns a procedure that has the
potential to compete with more conservative methods such as eyeglasses and
contact lenses. Also, that 2 or 3 percent will never go away. A corneal
infection can be treated, and with the exception of about 10% of the 1/500,
there are no long-term sequellae. Patients are free to resume contact lens
wear on a daily wear basis, or switch to eyeglasses. Not so for the
unlucky few percent who are damaged by LASIK.
DrG
| |
| C. Gates 2004-11-04, 11:11 am |
|
Wal wrote:
> When I am 2 years post op I will be telling everyone how good I feel too.
> Actually I already tell everyone I see how great it is.
> Do you really think that the 98% of great lasik cases should stay quiet so
> the world listens only to the 2 percent left over?
>
> Wal
Please read the post. I did not say anything about silencing anybody.
This is usenet and folks are free to post whatever opinions they want.
Happy campers are free to express their joy. Same for those who have had
their eysight permanently damaged as a result of lasik.
Like Glenn, I am simply cautioning any candidate to consider all the
factors
that involve their own individual circumstances, and not rush to surgery
just because a few happy campers say it worked great for them and by
implication it can be great for most others, too. Each person has to
make a decision based on their unique, individual circumstances -- not
based on what others say -- good or bad.
The other point is: most people have absolutely no concept of what a bad
outcome can do to a person's life.
In short, the odds are strongly in favor of a good outcome. But the
prize for a bad outcome is really horrible -- worse than most people can
imagine. Which is why there are so many cautions posted here.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-11-04, 11:11 am |
| I will respectfully disagree with you DrG on one point. You state
that the 2% (it's actually 3%, BTW) will never go away. That is not
accurate.
Our analysis of thousands of patients has shown that only about 0.5%
of refractive surgery patients have a serious complication that would
require long-term maintenance or invasive intervention.
The single largest unresolved complication at six months postop is
LASIK induced dry eye. Although it may last indefinitely, LASIK
induced dry eye normally does resolve as the reinnervation and healing
of the cornea progresses. Although 3% have problems at six months
postop, it is reasonable to assume that fewer have problems at one
year, fewer at two years, and fewer still at five years.
Your other points about the relative safety of contacts and glasses
are spot on, but we all know that people will accept an amazing amount
of risk to make themselves look better, thinner, for more convenience,
or just to make something different.
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 2004-11-04, 7:16 pm |
| I am trying to imagine what category of complications gets better with time
other than possibly dry eye. Seems to me that a decentered ablation will
always be a decentered ablation, etc.
Whatever the number (and we can probably debate it), the population of
complicated patients will continue to grow because many of the post-
surgical problems are not yet fixable.
DrG
Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in
news:5jmko093c41l97gh6mh1g29gij1o7ikjlg@4ax.com:
> I will respectfully disagree with you DrG on one point. You state
> that the 2% (it's actually 3%, BTW) will never go away. That is not
> accurate.
>
> Our analysis of thousands of patients has shown that only about 0.5%
> of refractive surgery patients have a serious complication that would
> require long-term maintenance or invasive intervention.
>
> The single largest unresolved complication at six months postop is
> LASIK induced dry eye. Although it may last indefinitely, LASIK
> induced dry eye normally does resolve as the reinnervation and healing
> of the cornea progresses. Although 3% have problems at six months
> postop, it is reasonable to assume that fewer have problems at one
> year, fewer at two years, and fewer still at five years.
>
> Your other points about the relative safety of contacts and glasses
> are spot on, but we all know that people will accept an amazing amount
> of risk to make themselves look better, thinner, for more convenience,
> or just to make something different.
>
> 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.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-11-04, 7:16 pm |
| >Whatever the number (and we can probably debate it), the population of
>complicated patients will continue to grow because many of the post-
>surgical problems are not yet fixable.
On that point we can absolutely (and sadly) agree.
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.
| |
|
|
"C. Gates" <rcjwampum@tiac.net> wrote in message
news:418A2FB0.9020203@tiac.net...
>
>
> Wal wrote:
>
too.[vbcol=seagreen]
so[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Please read the post. I did not say anything about silencing anybody.
> This is usenet and folks are free to post whatever opinions they want.
> Happy campers are free to express their joy. Same for those who have had
> their eysight permanently damaged as a result of lasik.
>
> Like Glenn, I am simply cautioning any candidate to consider all the
> factors
> that involve their own individual circumstances, and not rush to surgery
> just because a few happy campers say it worked great for them and by
> implication it can be great for most others, too. Each person has to
> make a decision based on their unique, individual circumstances -- not
> based on what others say -- good or bad.
>
> The other point is: most people have absolutely no concept of what a bad
> outcome can do to a person's life.
>
> In short, the odds are strongly in favor of a good outcome. But the
> prize for a bad outcome is really horrible -- worse than most people can
> imagine. Which is why there are so many cautions posted here.
Well I don't mind people being cautious but we have to be fair as well.
There's certainly more than just a "few happy campers" More like the vast
majority. We have to tell people the truth and not just try to scare the
shit out of them quoting nothing but the bad cases.
I think we also have to clarify the actual percent of real bad cases - not
just a bit of dry eye etc. Glen says at 6 months most of the 3% are dry eye
problems and most of them right themselves at 12 months or longer. What's
left?? Maybe .5% - 1% ?? OK of that .5% - 1% left most would be able to be
corrected with contacts or other methods - right?? Please correct me if I am
wrong. I know this is not the best outcome but these people CAN still see
and function pretty much normally.
Now what would be the percentage chance of a outcome worse than this?? Would
it be around .05% ??? If not you tell me what it is!!!
Wouldn't we be more honest to tell people the truth and inform them of the
very remote odds of having a extremely bad outcome.
Any surgery has its risks. Most I would guess are far far worse risks than
lasik. I mean even in my home town here we hear of cases in hospital of
people going in for minor injuries and being infected by Golden Staff I
think its called. They end up having limbs amputated and all sorts of
problems. Not real nice at all but it happens. Others dying from the
anesetic during operations.
Lets try to get real here and realise that lasik has one of the lowest risks
of all surgeries. It has probably helped many millions of people to live a
much more enjoyable life without glasses/contacts.
Wal
| |
| Wizkid 2004-11-05, 2:10 am |
| If the risks are low, and recognizing that there are trade-offs, is it
not more ethical and reasonable to disclose those, letting the patient
weigh the trade-offs? Or are they incapable of assessing what is in
their best interests? I have a hard time understanding talk that
"patients are being scared", "everyone knows surgery has risks", etc.
The patient has a right to know. We have an obligation to tell. WK
"Wal" <notmewally@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2uvq47F2fok8fU1@uni-berlin.de>...
> "C. Gates" <rcjwampum@tiac.net> wrote in message
> news:418A2FB0.9020203@tiac.net...
> too.
> so
>
> Well I don't mind people being cautious but we have to be fair as well.
> There's certainly more than just a "few happy campers" More like the vast
> majority. We have to tell people the truth and not just try to scare the
> shit out of them quoting nothing but the bad cases.
> I think we also have to clarify the actual percent of real bad cases - not
> just a bit of dry eye etc. Glen says at 6 months most of the 3% are dry eye
> problems and most of them right themselves at 12 months or longer. What's
> left?? Maybe .5% - 1% ?? OK of that .5% - 1% left most would be able to be
> corrected with contacts or other methods - right?? Please correct me if I am
> wrong. I know this is not the best outcome but these people CAN still see
> and function pretty much normally.
> Now what would be the percentage chance of a outcome worse than this?? Would
> it be around .05% ??? If not you tell me what it is!!!
>
> Wouldn't we be more honest to tell people the truth and inform them of the
> very remote odds of having a extremely bad outcome.
> Any surgery has its risks. Most I would guess are far far worse risks than
> lasik. I mean even in my home town here we hear of cases in hospital of
> people going in for minor injuries and being infected by Golden Staff I
> think its called. They end up having limbs amputated and all sorts of
> problems. Not real nice at all but it happens. Others dying from the
> anesetic during operations.
>
> Lets try to get real here and realise that lasik has one of the lowest risks
> of all surgeries. It has probably helped many millions of people to live a
> much more enjoyable life without glasses/contacts.
> Wal
| |
|
|
"Wizkid" <gospa68@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c11e3ecf.0411042203.2afdd6c0@posting.google.com...
> If the risks are low, and recognizing that there are trade-offs, is it
> not more ethical and reasonable to disclose those, letting the patient
> weigh the trade-offs?
Yea if the risk percentage is told then ok.
Example:
You have a 3% chance of dry eye at 6 months which will more than likely
disappear by 12 months.
You have a .5 - 1% chance of having more permanent problems although they
will probably be able to be corrected with contacts or some other method.
You have a (guessing here) .05% chance of having permanent un correctable
vision after lasik.
Trouble is most anti lasik people here don't spell it out clearly like this.
They will instead use scare tactics to make people think that bad outcomes
are very common without letting people know the actual percentage chance of
this happening. If someone knows the risks involved and the chances of
things going wrong then they can make up there own minds either way.
If someone like "Redripeapple" posts saying how happy he is then people
should be happy for him too. Instead the anti's come along with the negative
comments. Some people can't face the fact that Lasik works extremely well
for most people.
> Or are they incapable of assessing what is in
> their best interests? I have a hard time understanding talk that
> "patients are being scared", "everyone knows surgery has risks",
I think the above is pretty obvious isn't it. That's the anti's main purpose
here isn't it. Some like Sandy even boast about how she has stopped many
people from having it. What would you call it if its not "scaring"
candidates off? I know that I was nervous when I first came here pre lasik
after reading all the anti's posts. The trouble is most of the 97+% of
successful procedures don't bother coming here. The main people that do is
the anti's. Because of this potential candidates are getting the false idea
of how good lasik really is.
> The patient has a right to know. We have an obligation to tell. WK
You also have an obligation to tell the truth about how uncommon any
problems occur.
Wal
<another extremely happy lasik customer>
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-11-05, 2:10 am |
| >The patient has a right to know. We have an obligation to tell. WK
Okay WizKid, write an informed consent that YOU think is appropriate
and that YOU think gives patients the information that YOU think they
need to have for YOU to accept that they have made an informed
decision. I'm sure we would all like to see this document. Heck,
I'll make it available for download on our website so patients and
doctors alike can take a look at what YOU think they must see before
they can make an informed decision.
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 <c11e3ecf.0411042203.2afdd6c0@posting.google.com>,
gospa68@aol.com (Wizkid) wrote:
> The patient has a right to know. We have an obligation to tell. WK
Yes, so the patient can make a real informed decision on the risks.
And the patient has an obligation to disclose EVERYTHING they know about
their medical history, not to gloss over anything, gambling that they
won't be the 3%. I wonder how many of the 3% complications are people
who lied to their doctors, didn't listen to their doctors, or continued
to search for a doctor when they had been turned down for the procedure
by another doctor.
| |
| Rebecca 2004-11-05, 11:09 am |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message news:<fjamo01620h4tb8k9139kgk80b1h8bschm@4ax.com>...
>
> Okay WizKid, write an informed consent that YOU think is appropriate
> and that YOU think gives patients the information that YOU think they
> need to have for YOU to accept that they have made an informed
> decision. I'm sure we would all like to see this document. Heck,
> I'll make it available for download on our website so patients and
> doctors alike can take a look at what YOU think they must see before
> they can make an informed decision.
What a terrific idea, Glenn. Is this offer open only to WizKid?
Rebecca Petris
www.lasermyeye.org
| |
| RedRipeApple 2004-11-05, 11:09 am |
|
>Do you really think that the 98% of great lasik cases should stay quiet so
>the world listens only to the 2 percent left over?
EXACTLY!
| |
| RedRipeApple 2004-11-05, 11:09 am |
| No one ever talks about complications with contact lenses. Dry eye just as bad
as from Lasik and my contact BROKE IN MY EYE and got lodged under my eyelid and
had to be surgically removed. It was dangerous and traumatic. But no one is
scared of contact lenses right??
| |
| RedRipeApple 2004-11-05, 11:09 am |
| The people who have had their eyesight permenantly danged WERE NOT CANDIDATES
FOR LASIK. They also had MAJOR eye problems before like corneal scratches,
extreme prescriptions and more. I have read their stories, have you?????
| |
| RedRipeApple 2004-11-05, 11:09 am |
|
>
>If someone like "Redripeapple" posts saying how happy he is then people
>should be happy for him too.
I AM A FEMALE! How did you figure male from my screen name? EEP! ;-)
| |
| RedRipeApple 2004-11-05, 11:09 am |
| >
>Personally, I would love to see this procedure outlawed. Do you know of any
>organized political action group working to rein-in this business?
every party has a pooper that's why we invited you - party pooper, that's you!
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-11-05, 11:09 am |
| Of course, Rebecca. I made this offer to Ron Link years ago. The
offer of CRSQA distributing an informed consent created by one of
these anti-lasik surgery/surgeon/industry types has been out there for
years, but to date no one has submitted a paragraph.
I have a theory why these individuals and groups don't rise to the
challenge.
If SurgicalEyes, Keller, Broken Eyes, WizKid or any of this crowd were
to create an informed consent process, but patient decides to have
LASIK even after going through their process, then the anti-lasik
surgery/surgeon/industry folks would not be able to suggest that the
only reason people have LASIK is because they are uninformed.
These types cannot publicly acknowledge that informed patients will
elect to have LASIK, because that would throw out a major component of
their rhetoric against LASIK..
I submit that these people don't really want patients to be factually
informed. What they want is for people to be scared. IMO they know
deep down that complete and factually substantiated information will
not frighten everyone away from LASIK. That is one of the reasons they
attack us so often. These anti-LASIK folks will not help properly
inform people for fear of losing their claim of illegitimacy: "The
patient wasn't properly informed!"
If you want to take on the task of creating an informed consent that
passes US legal muster, I'd be delighted to make it available AND I
will distribute it to all of our certified surgeons. I also have a
few contacts with the major ophthalmic malpractice insurance companies
and I would gladly use whatever influence I have to make it available
through them.
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.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-11-05, 11:09 am |
| It would be difficult to say how many or what percentage don't pay
proper attention, but I can submit two examples that illustrate this
situation:
1) People who just go in and have surgery without doing any due
diligence about the procedure or the surgeon. Especially those going
to the lowest bidder with no doing research.
2) People who unsuccessfully claim malpractice on the grounds that
they were not properly informed.
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.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-11-05, 7:14 pm |
| To be fair, not everyone who has refractive surgery induced problems
would fit under this category. There are cases of appropriate
candidates receiving appropriate care from qualified surgeons who
nonetheless have poor outcomes. That is the problem with surgery;
there are no guarantees. Even if the percentage is very, very small,
bad outcomes do happen.
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.
| |
|
| Ok Red so sorry. I don't know why I chose to think of you as male.
Guess I took a 50/50 chance and blew it.
The next "Apple" whether it be redripe or sow I will be sure to regard it as
female from now on ok!
Regards
Wal
(Male by the way)
"RedRipeApple" <redripeapple@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041105110539.09653.00000063@mb-m20.aol.com...
>
>
> I AM A FEMALE! How did you figure male from my screen name? EEP! ;-)
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-11-06, 11:09 am |
| redripeapple@aol.com (RedRipeApple) wrote in
news:20041105110130.09653.00000061@mb-m20.aol.com:
> No one ever talks about complications with contact lenses. Dry eye
> just as bad as from Lasik and my contact BROKE IN MY EYE and got
> lodged under my eyelid and had to be surgically removed. It was
> dangerous and traumatic. But no one is scared of contact lenses
> right??
>
What was the outcome of that mishap? You see, the vast majority of contact
lens-related complications are without sequellae, i.e. without lasting
effects. During my 20+ years of a busy contact lens practice, I have seen
"0" (none, nada) patients who have lost two or more lines of visual acuity
as a result of a contact lens.
DrG
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-11-06, 11:09 am |
| redripeapple@aol.com (RedRipeApple) wrote in
news:20041105110656.09653.00000064@mb-m20.aol.com:
>
> every party has a pooper that's why we invited you - party pooper,
> that's you!
>
It will be a cold day in hell before the FDA or any political entity
interferes with the practice of medicine, as it would open a huge pandora's
box. Think of the laser as a sophisticated scalpel.
DrG
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-11-06, 11:09 am |
| Twenty years? Really? You don't seem old enough to have been
practicing for twenty years.
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-11-06, 7:10 pm |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in
news:phtpo05s7o0vviml5393cejb71dl9fmn03@4ax.com:
> Twenty years? Really? You don't seem old enough to have been
> practicing for twenty years.
>
Flattery will get you everywhere.
DrG
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-11-06, 7:10 pm |
| Hey, I'm not kidding. I really am surprised. Can you earn an OD at
puberty?
8^)
| |
| Rebecca 2004-11-06, 7:10 pm |
| lasik_experience <lasik_experience@invalid_address.net> wrote in message news:<10ok619jq08n85d@news.supernews.com>...
> Personally, I would love to see this procedure outlawed.
That's really not technically possible. The relevant medical lawmakers
are the FDA and they do not regulate procedures, only devices. The
closest equivalent therefore to outlawing the procedure would be for
each and every approved model of excimer laser to be recalled.
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-11-07, 11:09 am |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in
news:5qcqo0t9lhld1bs70o7q2km9gns3kijg8v@4ax.com:
> Hey, I'm not kidding. I really am surprised. Can you earn an OD at
> puberty?
>
> 8^)
>
I don't think you have seen a picture of me that isn't at least 10 years
old. But, on the OTOH, I really haven't aged. :o
DrG
| |
| Ragnar Suomi 2004-11-08, 7:12 pm |
| On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 14:02:18 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in
>news:5qcqo0t9lhld1bs70o7q2km9gns3kijg8v@4ax.com:
>
>
>I don't think you have seen a picture of me that isn't at least 10 years
>old. But, on the OTOH, I really haven't aged. :o
>
>DrG
You haven't gotten any wiser either. You are the same crackpot you
always were. 8^)
| |
| DoctorMyEye 2004-11-08, 7:12 pm |
| Hey you guys..didn't you learn anything from this election?
Promiscuous homosexual bantering is not welcome in this country
anymore. ;)
The USA Eyes organization might be visited by the IRS, soon after it
investigates the NAACP and the MoveOn.org, etc, etc.....
"Dr. Leukoma" <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote in message news:<Xns959A53A07D75drgleukomacom@63.240.76.16>...
> Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in
> news:5qcqo0t9lhld1bs70o7q2km9gns3kijg8v@4ax.com:
>
>
> I don't think you have seen a picture of me that isn't at least 10 years
> old. But, on the OTOH, I really haven't aged. :o
>
> DrG
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-11-08, 7:13 pm |
| Okay Ragnar, we know you have it out for DrG, but not all of us share
your views. If he says something that is crackpot, then make a
relevant remark then. Otherwise, it is just a lot of name calling and
nobody is being served.
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 2004-11-08, 7:13 pm |
| I don't have it out for Dr. G. Dr. G has it out for Dr. G. I have
repeatedly tried to get him to wise up and turn his brain on for the
past few months. He has ceased making a total XXX out of himself on
a daily basis... but too late.. his agenda has been exposed,
established, and put in stone. You can't teach an old dog new tricks.
The best he can do is not make a bigger fool of himself than he
already has. He's not stupid, just misguided. I expect that he will
think before hitting the SEND button on his posts in the future.
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 20:04:23 GMT, Glenn - USAEyes.org
<glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:
>Okay Ragnar, we know you have it out for DrG, but not all of us share
>your views. If he says something that is crackpot, then make a
>relevant remark then. Otherwise, it is just a lot of name calling and
>nobody is being served.
>
>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 2004-11-08, 7:13 pm |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in
news:v7kvo0t8pofoifil4q8b699o9oiobkkbgf@4ax.com:
> Okay Ragnar, we know you have it out for DrG, but not all of us share
> your views. If he says something that is crackpot, then make a
> relevant remark then. Otherwise, it is just a lot of name calling and
> nobody is being served.
>
> 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.
>
Is Ragnar still stalking me? Do you think I need to inform local law
enforcement?
DrG
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-11-08, 7:13 pm |
| Okay, okay, Ragnar. My point is, wait until somebody actually posts
something misguided or asinine before you say that person is misguided
or asinine. In other words, my suggestion is to keep posts relevant
to the issue at hand. That is usually more than enough opportunity to
make your concerns known.
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.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-11-08, 7:13 pm |
| Stalking? I don't think so. I'm just suggesting keeping more on the
subject at hand.
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 2004-11-09, 7:12 pm |
| On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 21:43:30 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com>
wrote:
>Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in
>news:v7kvo0t8pofoifil4q8b699o9oiobkkbgf@4ax.com:
>
>
>Is Ragnar still stalking me? Do you think I need to inform local law
>enforcement?
>
>DrG
You are slipping off your hinges Dr Gemoules. Perhaps the state of
Texas medical board needs to review your practice and your mental
state.
|
| |
|
|