|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > December 2004 > How about a response, Rebecca
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 |
How about a response, Rebecca
|
|
|
|
| Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.COM 2004-12-24, 7:10 pm |
| Glenn Hagele simply can't think of anything to useful to say, now that he
has been proven a liar and a fraud.
==========================http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&actio
n=m&board=160433942...Alcon got busted on Fox News Chicago
by: lasikreport (M/Illinois) 12/22/04 12:08 am
Msg: 725 of 732
Tonight Fox News broadcast a not-so-secure tape recorded conversations
between doctors who claimed that LadarVision lasers were defective. Among
the doctors whose voices appeard on the audio tape was Dr. Joseph Dello
Russo.
Dr. Joseph Dello Russo is "certified" by Glenn Hagele of CRSQA, a front
group for the lasik industry, that poses as a patient advocacy group. As you
remember, Hagele issued a press within hours of my posting an article on the
alt.lasik-eyes newsgroup critical of Alcon. In his press release, Hagele
claimed to have performed a comprehensive study that found no problems with
Alcon lasers.
Fox also obtained and displayed excerpts from documents obtained in
deposition with regard to a lawsuit filed against Alcon by surgeons.
One of the documents appeared to be a spreadsheet containing a listing of
retreatment rates for patients, broken down by doctor. The reporter asked
his own surgeon about retreatment rates, but the retreatment rates quoted by
the doctor didn't appear to jive with the numbers that appeared in Alcon's
spreadsheet. The numbers in the spreadsheet appeared to be quite a bit
higher.
I doubt that too many people in Chicago are going to be running to their
surgeon and asking for lasik.
The story will likely get re-broadcast throughout the entire Fox network.
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-12-24, 10:08 pm |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in
news:tguos018otgm15pgodqm213eldlimcfou2@4ax.com:
> Rebecca, since you are so intimately involved in the NICE report, what
> is your response to the criticism from our organization and more
> specifically, George Waring, MD who has decried the use of his study
> on LASIK patients from 1995-1996 by NICE to evaluate the safety and
> efficacy of LASIK today?
>
I was not involved at all in the NICE report, but I have made a few
observations of my own: NICE referenced many more studies than the Waring
study. I'll begin with a question: If the Waring study is excluded, how
will that change the conclusions?
DrG
| |
| rebeccaNO_SPAM@lasermyeye.org 2004-12-24, 10:08 pm |
|
Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:
> Rebecca, since you are so intimately involved in the NICE report
I am not involved, intimately or otherwise. As stated the activity in
which I have been involved is the parliamentary panel.
I have not had an opportunity to study the NICE report myself yet,
though I have discussed some aspects of it with prominent
ophthalmologists in the UK. If I were to comment completely off the
cuff, it would probably be along similar lines to DrG's. A forest isn't
defined by a single tree. I am sure NICE doesn't need my help defending
their work any more than the many strong voices in the LASIK industry
attacking the report need your help.
Merry Christmas all. Take a break from Google already and enjoy life a
little.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-12-25, 2:07 am |
| >I was not involved at all in the NICE report, but I have made a few
>observations of my own: NICE referenced many more studies than the Waring
>study. I'll begin with a question: If the Waring study is excluded, how
>will that change the conclusions?
That is a very good point that may be hard to determine accurately,
however NICE made a point of quoting Dr. Waring's study, so it must
have been prominent in their evaluation.
If you or I had a potential LASIK candidate contact us and all we
quoted was the techniques and technology of 10 years ago, I think all
would agree the patient was not being very well served.
One study out of the several reviewed by NICE may or may not make a
difference, but the fact that a study of decade old techniques and
technology was used at all (let alone specifically quoted) would
indicate at the very least that the people behind the NICE report were
not focused on the safety and efficacy of refractive surgery today.
It is something for those using the NICE report to consider.
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 2004-12-25, 2:07 am |
| >> Rebecca, since you are so intimately involved in the NICE report
>
>I am not involved, intimately or otherwise. As stated the activity in
>which I have been involved is the parliamentary panel.
Sorry, when you say "I have been working with them for over a year" it
indicates to me that you are rather closely involved.
>I have not had an opportunity to study the NICE report myself yet,
>though I have discussed some aspects of it with prominent
>ophthalmologists in the UK.
You have the press release on your website. You have the link to the
full release and patient booklet on your website. You have said that
you were working with these people for over a year. You state you
have discussed "some aspects" with prominent ophthalmologists in the
UK. You are quoted in the press all over the place. You have made
several statements on your own website that are clearly supportive of
the NICE report, but you have NOT read the thing? That is rather
surprising to me.
>If I were to comment completely off the
>cuff, it would probably be along similar lines to DrG's.
Take a look at my full response to DrG., but the short point is that
the NICE report specifically quoted/cited Dr. Wa ring's decade old
data. If it was not a prominently important study in their analysis,
then it seems odd that it would end up quoted in the final report.
>A forest isn't
>defined by a single tree.
It is when the Ranger points out that tree and tells everyone to
evaluate the rest of the forest by that tree's size and breadth.
>I am sure NICE doesn't need my help defending
>their work any more than the many strong voices in the LASIK industry
>attacking the report need your help.
As far as "my help" is concerned, I frankly don't care if I step on
the toes of representatives of NICE or representatives of the LASIK
industry. Flaws are flaws and if the flaws are glaring, the validity
of the conclusions are suspect. We have brought attention to this in
the NICE report just as we did when the ophthalmic industry created
their own LASIK guidelines.
The NICE report is significantly less than what one would expect from
an evaluation that took hours upon hours of testimony and over a year
to create. At the very least, you would hope they would consider
primarily information created within the last 2-3 years, or at the
very least, information that is relevant to today.
A good comparison would be the American Society of Cataract and
Refractive Surgeons' LASIK Patient Screening Guidelines
(http://www.lasikinstitute.org/LASIK...Guidelines.html).
It is significantly more comprehensive, the evaluations are more
exhaustive, and with the exception of a troubling 1% complication rate
statement (which we openly condemned and have lobbied hard to have
revised), is by far a better piece of patient education and physician
guideline than the NICE report...and it was put together by a group of
LASIK surgeons.
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.
| |
| rebeccaNO_SPAM@lasermyeye.org 2004-12-25, 11:08 am |
|
Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:
in[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Sorry, when you say "I have been working with them for over a year"
it
> indicates to me that you are rather closely involved.
Whether this is merely ignorance or deliberate mischaracterisation, I
don't much care.
For the benefit of other readers, NICE is one thing and Parliament is
another. I said I am not involved with NICE in any way and that I have
been long involved with a Parliamentary forum. It simply doesn't get
any clearer than that - unless, of course, you are Glenn Hagele.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-12-25, 7:09 pm |
| >For the benefit of other readers, NICE is one thing and Parliament is
>another. I said I am not involved with NICE in any way and that I have
>been long involved with a Parliamentary forum. It simply doesn't get
>any clearer than that - unless, of course, you are Glenn Hagele.
GIve it a rest, Rebecca. If you can't handle criticism, then what are
you doing putting yourself out as a voice of a constituency?
I do not possess extensive knowledged of the organization structure of
the British medical establishment, UK government agencies, and your
involvement with either/or. Lack of clarity on your part does not
make necessary rude remarks about my ability to comprehend what you
have (or in this case, have not) written.
But you did do a nice job of dodging the actual question.
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.
|
| |
|
|