| Barnard 2005-01-20, 7:07 am |
| Responding to Glenn Hagele, LIP (LASIK Industry Pimp)
-------------------------------------------
Misdirection is rightly known as "the magician's greatest friend." By
waving a hand or making a funny comment at the right time, the magician
focuses the audience's attention on something irrelevant, away from his
bag of tricks.
It is a foregone conclusion that Glenn Hagele, everybody's favorite
LIP, began his illustrious career as a rent-a-magician, doing lame card
tricks and pulling irrelevant facts out of his XXX at birthday parties.
If nothing else, his current profession of LASIK pimp is inspiring
evidence of upward mobility -- the American Dream in action, as it
were.
LIP first states that the ASCRS, AAO, FTC, and FDA do not specifically
prohibit advertisement of off-label uses. This is true. They also do
not specifically prohibit surgeons from spitting in the eyes of their
patients. But prior to 1998, all four of those organizations did in
fact prohibit off-label advertising. What happened in 1998? The
Washington Legal Foundation, at the behest of several industry PACs,
sued the FDA, claiming that any restrictions on dissemination of
information related to off-label uses were unconstitutional (WLF vs.
Friedman). So the lack of specific prohibitions in the guidelines of
those four organizations merely reflects the fact that they are
constitutionally prohibited from doing so.
Given that all four organizations specifically prohibited the practice
prior to the industry-led court challenge, does anyone find Glenn's
response to Rebecca just a leeeetle bit disingenuous?
And LIP's reference to Bates vs. Arizona State Bar is classic
misdirection as well. Rebecca's stated concern is with advertising of
off-label uses; she said nothing about the general issue of medical
advertising. Yet Glenn cites a court case which he himself correctly
describes as having nothing to do with off-label advertising. Why
would he do such a thing? Because most everyone reading it will assume
that it somehow supports Glenn's position, and refutes Rebecca's
position. "Ooh, Glenn cites a court case -- he must know what he's
talking about!" Gag.
Does anyone here believe LIP's careful use of misdirection is
unintentional? Does anyone here NOT see how LIP's careful use of
misdirection is perfectly consistent with CRSQA's primary mission of
promoting LASIK?
----------------------------------------
Glenn Hagele is chief mouthpiece for CRSQA (Council for Really Shitty
Quality Assurance).
CRSQA is registered as a 501(c)(6) "trade Organization," whose defining
purpose, according to IRS law, is to promote LASIK as a business.
CRSQA is NOT registered as a 501(c)(3) "health safety organization," as
their website fraudulently claims.
CRSQA's expensive "certification" of surgeons is incompatible with
their claim to be a patient advocacy organization. "Where your treasure
is, there will your heart be also."
CRSQA is financed by laser manufacturers and surgeons, and defends
laser manufacturers and surgeons against patients.
CRSQA has not and will never defend patients against surgeons or laser
manufacturers.
|