|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > January 2005 > Let's see if this one gets by the mythical kill filter of Dr. Gemoules
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 |
Let's see if this one gets by the mythical kill filter of Dr. Gemoules
|
|
| Ragnar 2005-01-19, 11:09 am |
| It's widely known that Dr. Gemoules never had LASIK surgery done. He
wears contact lenses.
It is also widely known that Dr. Gemoules takes 2 TABLESPOONS (that's
6 teaspoons folks) of fish oil per day for his dry eyes.
Sounds to me like someone is having some dry eye issues with their
contact lenses. Does he expect all his patients to slurp up 2
tablespoons of foul-tasting, laxative acting, bad-breath making fish
oil per day?
| |
| Barnard 2005-01-19, 11:09 am |
| Responding to Christopher "Rags" Roiland, DIP (not an acronym)
-----------------------------------------------
My God, Rags -- this goes way beyond pathetic. I presume this means
that insensitive bastard Gemoules turned you down again for a date?
I can't imagine why Greg would respond to this. I'm sure he knows
better than to give his frustrated suitor even the slightest
encouragement. While you're waiting expectantly with Binaca in hand,
Rags, just keep repeating this to yourself, "I'm a handsome,
intelligent DIP. Greg doesn't mean it. He must know I love him. He's
just teasing me. I'm a handsome, intelligent DIP . . ."
| |
|
| Geeeess Rags I think most of us are pretty much sick of all this petty bull
shit. It is rather childish don't you think?
Who gives a shit if DrG takes fish oil or not!! Sure doesn't bother me.
As a matter of interest Rags I take it myself at the moment and not for my
eyes but other reasons. They are tasteless, odorless and come in capsule
form now days.
>Does he expect all his patients to slurp up 2
> tablespoons of foul-tasting, laxative acting, bad-breath making fish
> oil per day?
You sound like your talking from experience. How many decades ago was this?
Wal
"Ragnar" <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dbpsu0dqs3najrer83471horu3llg8705t@4ax.com...
> It's widely known that Dr. Gemoules never had LASIK surgery done. He
> wears contact lenses.
> It is also widely known that Dr. Gemoules takes 2 TABLESPOONS (that's
> 6 teaspoons folks) of fish oil per day for his dry eyes.
>
> Sounds to me like someone is having some dry eye issues with their
> contact lenses. Does he expect all his patients to slurp up 2
> tablespoons of foul-tasting, laxative acting, bad-breath making fish
> oil per day?
| |
| djken@optusnet.com.au 2005-01-19, 10:08 pm |
| Amen to that Wal !!!!
| |
| Simpledog 2005-01-19, 10:08 pm |
| I use it as a "personal" lubricant.
Wait, did I say that?
"Wal" <notmewally@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3587h2F4j919uU1@individual.net...
> Geeeess Rags I think most of us are pretty much sick of all this petty
> bull
> shit. It is rather childish don't you think?
>
> Who gives a shit if DrG takes fish oil or not!! Sure doesn't bother me.
>
> As a matter of interest Rags I take it myself at the moment and not for my
> eyes but other reasons. They are tasteless, odorless and come in capsule
> form now days.
>
>
> You sound like your talking from experience. How many decades ago was
> this?
> Wal
>
>
>
> "Ragnar" <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:dbpsu0dqs3najrer83471horu3llg8705t@4ax.com...
>
>
| |
| serebel 2005-01-19, 10:08 pm |
| Simpledog,
Did you really want to say that here? 
SErebel
| |
| Barnard 2005-01-20, 7:07 am |
| LOL!
| |
| Simpledog 2005-01-20, 7:07 am |
| ALL I am saying is that fish oil has several uses, k?
lol.
"serebel" <serebel@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1106190535.876946.293910@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Simpledog,
>
> Did you really want to say that here?
>
> SErebel
>
| |
| Ragnar 2005-01-27, 8:51 am |
| It's normal to take about 2 of the gel capsules per day for other
reasons. There is a world of difference between that and 2
tablespoons. It would be very expensive to take two tablespoon's
worth of fish oil in capsule form. That's about half a typical bottle
of capsules.
Anyway, the point of my post was a very good one. Gemoules seems to
have a MAJOR dry eye problem with his contact lenses. I hope he
doesn't expect his patients to follow the same regimen that he does.
I'm surprised he doesn't have LASIK done so he can blame his dryness
on that.
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:07:10 +1000, "Wal" <notmewally@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Geeeess Rags I think most of us are pretty much sick of all this petty bull
>shit. It is rather childish don't you think?
>
>Who gives a shit if DrG takes fish oil or not!! Sure doesn't bother me.
>
>As a matter of interest Rags I take it myself at the moment and not for my
>eyes but other reasons. They are tasteless, odorless and come in capsule
>form now days.
>
>
>You sound like your talking from experience. How many decades ago was this?
>Wal
>
>
>
>"Ragnar" <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:dbpsu0dqs3najrer83471horu3llg8705t@4ax.com...
>
| |
| Barnard 2005-01-27, 8:51 am |
| Responding to Christopher "Rags" Roiland, DIP (not an acronym)
-----------------------------------------------
DIP-to-English translation: "I am NOT a paranoid delusional
light-in-the-loafers wack-job! I am NOT a -- WHAT'S THE FREQUENCY,
GEMOULES! -- paranoid delusional light-in-the-loafers wack-job. I am
NOT a . . ."
| |
| serebel 2005-01-27, 8:51 am |
| Well, apparently!
SErebel
| |
|
| I think you missed my point Rags.
We are all sick and tired of the childish fighting going on here. I mean
this attack is pathetic. If DrG annoyes you so much how about simply doing
what he has supposedly done to you and Block him. Otherwise you could simply
ignor him.
Wal
"Ragnar" <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ic90v015pdhd9j1m55bt4p8rrconfqrc5q@4ax.com...
> It's normal to take about 2 of the gel capsules per day for other
> reasons. There is a world of difference between that and 2
> tablespoons. It would be very expensive to take two tablespoon's
> worth of fish oil in capsule form. That's about half a typical bottle
> of capsules.
>
> Anyway, the point of my post was a very good one. Gemoules seems to
> have a MAJOR dry eye problem with his contact lenses. I hope he
> doesn't expect his patients to follow the same regimen that he does.
> I'm surprised he doesn't have LASIK done so he can blame his dryness
> on that.
>
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:07:10 +1000, "Wal" <notmewally@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
bull[vbcol=seagreen]
my[vbcol=seagreen]
this?[vbcol=seagreen]
>
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-01-27, 8:52 am |
| I'm with Wal on this one. There is enough bovine fertilizer from the
anti-LASIK folks. We could use less from the pro-LASIK folks too.
I'm attending a conference where DrG is presenting his findings on the
use of RGP lenses for post-refractive surgery patients. I also spent
much of my evening reading the publication of a peer-reviewed article
he authored on the same subject. I also have been meeting with many
of the prominent optometrists from around the world, and without
exception their opinion of DrG is high.
Ragnar, you may not like what DrG says, but your accusations of
incompetence are inaccurate. This is not just my opinion, but the
opinion of many others who are more in the know than am I.
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 2005-01-27, 8:52 am |
| Thanks for the words, Glenn.
I also want to say that I enjoyed meeting Glenn at the conference. He
is a very knowledgeable and interesting individual who, in my opinion,
is undeserving of the continuous ad hominem attacks on his character.
At least Glenn took the time to attend the conference, read my article,
and attend the lecture. Actions speak louder than words.
DrG
| |
| Ragnar 2005-01-27, 8:52 am |
| Then there is something wrong with your thinking too.. because I have
pointed out several items in which he is completely inaccurate, wrong,
and misleading.
I don't see anybody sticking up for Dr. Gemoules in this group other
than you and Rebecca and Barnyard.
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 17:44:43 GMT, Glenn - USAEyes.org
<glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:
>I'm with Wal on this one. There is enough bovine fertilizer from the
>anti-LASIK folks. We could use less from the pro-LASIK folks too.
>
>I'm attending a conference where DrG is presenting his findings on the
>use of RGP lenses for post-refractive surgery patients. I also spent
>much of my evening reading the publication of a peer-reviewed article
>he authored on the same subject. I also have been meeting with many
>of the prominent optometrists from around the world, and without
>exception their opinion of DrG is high.
>
>Ragnar, you may not like what DrG says, but your accusations of
>incompetence are inaccurate. This is not just my opinion, but the
>opinion of many others who are more in the know than am I.
>
>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.
| |
| djken@optusnet.com.au 2005-01-27, 8:52 am |
| I will stick up for Dr G although he reallly doesn't need it. Anyone
who has been reading this NG for a while knows that he is a quality
person. Ragnar, I think even you must realise that the attacks have
become very churlish. We get it - you don't like Dr G. Can we move on.
Linda
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-01-27, 8:52 am |
| Right back at you DrG. Yours was the one course that had me paying
close attention, and I learned definitely something. Now let's find a
way to get your information in front of more refractive 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.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-01-27, 8:52 am |
| It is not so much sticking up for an individual as sticking up for the
information that individual provides. DrG and I don't always agree,
but I think it is fair to say that we respect the process by which
each of us gain a conclusion.
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 2005-01-27, 8:52 am |
| It's not a matter of agreeing..
The man has posted blatant false statements and misleading ones, and
if you can't see that then you are blind.
As much as I hate to give credit to Hanson for anything, he's got an
excellent side by side list of Dr. Gemoules vs Dr. Leukoma statements
which directly contradict one another.
I don't want to take the time to re-hash the past several months of
Gemoules statements. You know what I'm referring to. If you don't
see the problem with him then you are a problem too.
There are some fine optometrists around - mine for instance. But an
optometrist's comments in the field of refractive surgery is like the
tail wagging the dog. That is indisputable.
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 09:06:55 GMT, Glenn - USAEyes.org
<glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:
>It is not so much sticking up for an individual as sticking up for the
>information that individual provides. DrG and I don't always agree,
>but I think it is fair to say that we respect the process by which
>each of us gain a conclusion.
>
>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 2005-01-27, 8:52 am |
|
Ragnar wrote:
> It's not a matter of agreeing..
> The man has posted blatant false statements and misleading ones, and
> if you can't see that then you are blind.
Then enumerate them in detail, or else retract your statement.
DrG
| |
| Ragnar 2005-01-27, 8:52 am |
| As I said in my reply to Glenn... he KNOWS what I'm talking about..
and if he doesn't see the problem then he is blind.
My life his not this newsgroup, and I don't intend on re-hashing the
same thing over and over again. If anything, I have been rehashing
this crap too much already.
I have no doubt that you will entertain us with plenty more misleading
information and bad advice. I know your agenda now. I begrudgingly
admit I have a bit of sympathy for Keller. While she made some
terrible decisions - many of those decisions were made upon the
terrible advice of doctors she trusted such as yourself. In the
comptuer world, there is a very famous term called "GIGO". It stands
for "Garbage In, Garbage Out". Since she was fed a load of garbage
from doctors such as yourself, how can one blame her for making a bad
decision? I nearly made a horrible decision involving refractive
surgery myself by coming within seconds of having that idiot Rothman -
who probably has the highest incidence of complications of any surgeon
in North America, do PRK on me. He was not even the surgeon who was
supposed to do the surgeriy. If not for their optometrist getting
into a loud argument with the surgeon.. I probably would have had that
procedure done by that clown.
I'm sure you will continue to make a fool of yourself by continuing
the way you have been since YOUR patient committed suicide. There I
am being mean again. How dare you blame the LASIK surgeon for that
patient's suicide.
Have you had enough of an attack for today? I'm sure some people are
going to be saying I'm being mean again.
As Jack Smith said so many times "You Asked For It!" (see your
request below)
As someone else once said.."be careful what you ask for"
On 24 Jan 2005 18:52:55 -0800, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wrote:
>
>Ragnar wrote:
>Then enumerate them in detail, or else retract your statement.
>
>DrG
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2005-01-27, 8:52 am |
| That's libel, my friend.
DrG
| |
| Ragnar 2005-01-27, 8:52 am |
| Let's see now.. you ASKED to have the items listed and enumerated,
then when you get a response to your REQUEST, you call that libel?
Someone needs to sue you for malpractice, so I wouldn't get too
excited. Since you are the Dr. Frankenstein of optometry, I don't
think you would fare very well. In the nicest terms possible, your
methods are at the very least "unconventional" and "unusual" and
"expensive". I think Dr. Vic V. Frankenstein didn't even charge his
patients. Maybe he could give that one patient of yours a zap and
bring him back to life.
Speaking of libel.. trying to pin that suicide on the LASIK surgeon
was libelous and morally repugnant.
On 25 Jan 2005 05:20:12 -0800, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wrote:
>That's libel, my friend.
>
>DrG
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2005-01-27, 8:52 am |
|
Ragnar wrote:
> Let's see now.. you ASKED to have the items listed and enumerated,
> then when you get a response to your REQUEST, you call that libel?
>
> Someone needs to sue you for malpractice, so I wouldn't get too
> excited. Since you are the Dr. Frankenstein of optometry, I don't
> think you would fare very well. In the nicest terms possible, your
> methods are at the very least "unconventional" and "unusual" and
> "expensive". I think Dr. Vic V. Frankenstein didn't even charge his
> patients. Maybe he could give that one patient of yours a zap and
> bring him back to life.
More libel.
Maybe Glenn can enlighten you on my "unusual," "expensive," and
"unconventional" methods recently published.
>
> Speaking of libel.. trying to pin that suicide on the LASIK surgeon
> was libelous and morally repugnant.
>
Come on, Rags. Show the world where I said that. You cannot, because
it didn't happen, which means that you are making an intentionally
false statement with the intent to defame me.
By the way, we're still waiting for that so-called list of false and
misleading statements you said I made.
DrG
| |
|
| On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 09:45:49 -0500, Dr. Leukoma wrote
(in article <1106664349.470470.131270@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> ):
> Maybe Glenn can enlighten you on my "unusual," "expensive," and
> "unconventional" methods recently published.
I would be interested in reading this article. Could you send me a copy or
post an URL where it can be read?
thanks.
--
~RT
________________________________________________
Hogwasher, Premier News and Mail for OS X
http://www.asar.com/cgi-bin/product.../hogwasher.html
________________________________________________
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-01-27, 8:52 am |
| DrG's article is a great read if you are into that sort of thing.
One case study had very odd postoperative wavefronts that did not
initially make sense. After the presentation DrG, several doctors,
and I stayed to discuss the paper and those discussions apparently
fond an answer to the problem.
The patient had bilateral LASIK that caused central islands and
spherical aberrations. Her topography looked like a Mexican sombrero.
The patient received Complex Wavefront Retreatment (CWR) with a Zeiss
Meditec WASCA wavefront-guided laser. The treatment successfully
reduced the spherical aberration in the periphery, but did not
significantly reduce the central island. This is not surprising
because wavefront normally does not do well with central islands.
The reduction of the peripheral myopia without equal reduction of the
central island made the island larger relative to the periphery. In
other words, instead of lowering the bridge, they lowered the water.
The postoperative wavefronts show a moderate amount of high order
aberrations but a very large amount of total aberrations. If you
subtract the RMS of the high order aberrations from the RMS of the
total aberrations you get low order aberration RMS, which is
essentially sphere and cylinder. The thing is, according to this
patient's post-CWR wavefront, the patient has a large amount of sphere
and cylinder. According to the patient's manifest refraction, the
patient has virtually no sphere and cylinder.
The theoretical consensus was that a combination of two issues caused
the odd wavefront reading and the poor CWR outcome. The poor reading
is because wavefront, though very detailed, may attempt to make sense
of a central island (a high spot on the cornea creating a small area
of high myopia) by averaging the sphere across the tested area. In
other words, one mountain in the desert will make the whole area seem
like a high plateau to wavefront.
The other potential limitation is that this particular patient
selected a laser that uses Tscherning wavefront technology rather than
Hartman-Shack. It was theorized by those in the discussion that if
the patient had CWR with a Hartman-Shack laser, such as the Alcon
LADARvision 4000, rather than the Zeiss Meditec, the wavefront
analysis and the CWR outcome would have been significantly different.
That's the theory, anyway. It will take some additional research to
see if others concur.
Nonetheless, DrG's study showed that the use of carefully fitted
reverse geometry rigid gas permeable (RGP) contact lenses can
moderately to significantly improve vision quality in patients with
refractive surgery induced problems.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2005-01-27, 8:52 am |
| Glenn - USAEyes. org wrote:
>
> Nonetheless, DrG's study showed that the use of carefully fitted
> reverse geometry rigid gas permeable (RGP) contact lenses can
> moderately to significantly improve vision quality in patients with
> refractive surgery induced problems.
>
Aw shucks, Glenn. I may be biased, but I think that the paper made
some novel but important additional observations and conclusions. But,
they'll just have to purchase the paper from Lippincott, Williams, and
Wilkins to find out.
DrG
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-01-27, 8:52 am |
| After all that about the CWR, I figured the short version of what the
paper includes would do. I suspect that it will be discussed again at
greater length.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2005-01-27, 8:52 am |
|
Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:
>
> The other potential limitation is that this particular patient
> selected a laser that uses Tscherning wavefront technology rather
than
> Hartman-Shack. It was theorized by those in the discussion that if
> the patient had CWR with a Hartman-Shack laser, such as the Alcon
> LADARvision 4000, rather than the Zeiss Meditec, the wavefront
> analysis and the CWR outcome would have been significantly different.
>
Actually, I have no opinion with respect to the superiority of
Tscherning vs. Hartman-Shack in reading central islands. I just think
that it may not have appeared within the first four Zernicke terms on
either machine. Also, what is the general experience with treating
spherical aberration in the presence of a central island when the
spherical aberration was many magnitudes greater than any other single
aberration?
I believe my comments were that the central island was revealed on
topography if one looks closely, and that a contact lens corrects the
vision in any case. My point was that topography should not be
forgotten in the rush to the latest technology.
DrG
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-01-27, 8:52 am |
| Thanks for the clarification.
Topography clearly needs to be directly included in the ablation
profile. Relying only on wavefront is fine for reasonably regular
surfaces, but is much too limited in the current versions for greatly
irregular surfaces such as those with a central island.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-01-27, 8:52 am |
| On 25 Jan 2005 06:45:49 -0800, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wrote:
>
>Ragnar wrote:
>
>More libel.
>
>Maybe Glenn can enlighten you on my "unusual," "expensive," and
>"unconventional" methods recently published.
>
>Come on, Rags. Show the world where I said that. You cannot, because
>it didn't happen, which means that you are making an intentionally
>false statement with the intent to defame me.
>
>By the way, we're still waiting for that so-called list of false and
>misleading statements you said I made.
>
>
>DrG
For anyone interested in the previous threads, they are archived on
Google. Stick the word Gemoules in there and that will suffice.
No credible person is buying your baloney. Glenn tries hard to get
along with everybody. Too hard actually. He damages his own
credibility by associating with kooks.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-01-27, 8:52 am |
| I'd like to see that article too. Since he has a habit of cutting
and pasting information from other sources.. I wonder if he will
publically post something which might have appeared elsewhere.
Somehow, I don't think we will ever see this piece of work. He's
posted hundreds of thousands of messages in the past 5 years, but he's
suddenly gotten shy about giving out "information".
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:50:19 GMT, RT <RTMD24@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 09:45:49 -0500, Dr. Leukoma wrote
>(in article <1106664349.470470.131270@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> ):
>
>
>I would be interested in reading this article. Could you send me a copy or
>post an URL where it can be read?
>thanks.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-01-27, 8:52 am |
| On 25 Jan 2005 11:53:13 -0800, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wrote:
>Glenn - USAEyes. org wrote:
>
>
>Aw shucks, Glenn. I may be biased, but I think that the paper made
>some novel but important additional observations and conclusions. But,
>they'll just have to purchase the paper from Lippincott, Williams, and
>Wilkins to find out.
>
>DrG
Typical Dr. Gemoules... trying to make a buck. Does he seriously
think anybody is going to buy that paper?
Like "absence makes the heart grow fonder", the unseen paper is just
full of goodness that we all need to know.
He knows what would happen if he posted that paper here. It would get
so shot full of holes that it would look like swiss cheese.
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2005-01-27, 8:52 am |
|
Ragnar wrote:
> On 25 Jan 2005 11:53:13 -0800, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wrote:
>
> Typical Dr. Gemoules... trying to make a buck. Does he seriously
> think anybody is going to buy that paper?
> Like "absence makes the heart grow fonder", the unseen paper is just
> full of goodness that we all need to know.
>
> He knows what would happen if he posted that paper here. It would
get
> so shot full of holes that it would look like swiss cheese.
The paper is now "owned" by LWW, and is copyrighted by them. They make
money by selling intellectual property -- articles, journals, and
books. Actually, because I wanted the topographies to appear in full
color, I will have to pay them. So, yet another example of how Ragnar
is really out of touch with reality.
While the contents of the article are not beyond the grasp of some of
the participants here, it is certainly well beyond the grasp of Ragnar
whose mind is like swiss cheese.
DrG
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-01-27, 8:52 am |
| The publication in which DrG's article is found is the official
peer-reviewed journal of the Contact Lens Association of
Ophthalmologists (CLAO). All members of this international
professional association receive the publication
Listed in Index Medicus of the National Library of Medicine of the
Institutes of Health (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/), the quarterly CLAO
Journal is a peer-reviewed scientific publication focusing on contact
lenses, refractive surgery and related anterior segment topics. All
articles are searchable by future researchers.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
|
| |
|
|