| Ragnar 2005-01-27, 8:52 am |
| You kind of misinterpreted my point.. The idea is.. to induce
ecstasia.. they have to make slits 95 to 98% of the depth of the
cornea. Blaming LASIK for ecstasia is baloney.
Ron had RK.. did they name that RK problem after him? They could just
call it "Creep"
I wonder if his mythical lawyer is ever going to get a mythical name.
I think he has a lawsuit agains the local TV weather people because
they got the forecast wrong by 20 degrees.
That one suit he owns must be getting pretty raggedy by this time with
all the trips he takes to the courthouse.
He's planning on suing whoever but the "bop" in the
"bop-she-bop-she-bop" and put a restraining order on the person that
put the "dip" in the "dip-de-dip-de-dip".. and if he ever finds out
"who let the dogs out".. he will go after them too.
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:28:09 GMT, "Bryce Carlson"
<brycarlson@verizon.net> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Not necessarily true, Rags. Although I agree that with LASIK the 250 um RSB
>rule is sufficient in healthy eyes, your analogy to RK does not hold up.
>The deep radial incisions in RK *do* cause ectasia. That's the whole idea.
>The intent with RK is to induce a controlled mid-peripheral ectasia that
>effectively flattens the central cornea, reducing or eliminating the myopia.
>However, one of the big problems with RK is that the ectasia often (~40% of
>the time) does not stop with the intended initial mid-peripheral bulging.
>Instead, it often slowly progresses year after year resulting in what is
>called "creeping hyperopia." Many, if not most, previously myopic RK
>patients eventually end up hyperopic due to this process. This is a
>fundamental flaw in the RK procedure that has never been completely
>eliminated.
>
>Bryce Carlson
>
>
>"Ragnar" wrote in message news:
>
|