| Ron Link 2005-01-20, 2:08 am |
| Hey Glenn - shove it up your XXX-kissing face of an XXX. I never
endorsed the guidelines. I said they were a "good start." Look it up.
My lawyer has all your spittle and sputum catalogued to Kingdom Come.
As far as the letters you and Roiland are waiting for, my lawyer keeps
adding to the final draft because you simply can't stop yourself from
lying. You and Roiland are such idiots that you keep adding to the
5-inch thick pile of libel. www.complicatedeyes.com hasn't been updated
for months. You aren't a 501(c)3. You're a liar to the public and by
extension, to the IRS. I wonder what they think about you being a
501(c)6, having been denied (c)3 status and not changing your site for
months. How many pages have been "under construction" on
wwww.complicatedeyes.com for almost a year????? Simply a ploy to
discredit SEF? Give it up Glenn. You've been uncovered and there isn't
a rock big enough for you to hide under. As for you Roiland...the
degree to which you've gone to libel and harm is borderline terrorist
activity. My guess is that psychological counseling will be recommended
to curb your anti-social proclivities. I'm taking you both to the mat
and you don't have a legal leg to stand on. In my opinion, no doctor
with integrity will want to be associated with the likes of either of
you. Distance makes the heart grow stronger when it comes to rogues and
charlatans.
Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:
> Some of the things off the top of my head are:
>
> Presentation of concerns regarding phakic intraocular lenses to the
FDA
> Ophthalmic Devices Panel
>
> Presentation of concerns regarding FDA approval of CK for "blended"
> monovision.
>
> Advisory memorandum to all refractive surgeons regarding
> inappropriately stating that wavefront-guided lasers are FDA approved
> to correct higher order aberrations (they are not).
>
> There are many, many individual issues where we have acted on the
> patient's behalf. Frank has detailed one of these cases.
>
> A strong objection to a troubling 1% complication rate statement in
the
> LASIK Screening Guidelines distributed by the American Society of
> Cataract and Refractive Surgeons. Many of you know our efforts were
> thwarted by Ron Link's endorsement of these same guidelines.
>
> Directly challenging misleading or inaccurate information with device
> manufacturers and practitioners.
>
> I have acted as advisor for malpractice attorneys.
>
> I field an average of 40-50 patient inquiries a day where I provide
> researched responses to their questions or concerns. You may also
want
> to take a look at http://www.usaeyes.org/guest/book.htm
>
> And others that we are working on and some I'm sure I've forgotten.
>
> Generally, much of the work we do is behind the scenes and one issue
at
> a time. We try to confront the issues with cooperation and the
> expectation that behavior we believe to be inappropriate will be
> rectified when exposed. We don't normally find it necessary to go to
> the lay-press very often, but have when it seems appropriate and will
> in the future.
|