|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > November 2005 > The lengths people go to
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 |
The lengths people go to
|
|
| wtrattler@earthlink.net 2005-11-27, 6:00 pm |
| I find it ironic when a group of refractive surgery haters picks on a
person who donates their time helping people with questions or problems
after refractive surgery. The best part is they take excepts of my
comments or replies to them...and then post them on this website as if
I am taling to everyone. Case in point is my recent posting at
AskLasikdocs explaining that contact lenses have risks - including
blindness. I am currently caring for more than 2 dozen patients with
central corneal scars from contact lens-related infections. These
patients range from age 11 to age 60. The 11 year old girl developed
an acanthamoeba infection from her contact lens wear - and head to
endure 6 months of triple antibiotic therapy to clear her infectiom.
She unfortunately still has a central scar, which limits her vision.
The point is - everything has risks. Of course - in my reply to
these individuals (who change their name online so much that I do not
even know what name to call them) - I said if you are lobbying against
LASIK, you might as well lobby against contact lenses. Obviously my
comments were directed solely at the indiviual person - as I recommend
contact lenses all of the time to my patients, and lecture on the
proper use of contact lenses in patients with dry eye.
I think it becomes pretty obvious why there are not more doctors
participating on these bulletin boards, answering patient questions,
etc. Then again - these people want to get rid of all of the doctors
online so that only their voice is heard.
Best regards to everyone
Bill Trattler, MD
Miami, FL
| |
|
| Let me chime in. I am not much of a fan of contact lenses either. I
guess them being an irritant and drying my eyes out is good reason why.
If they were completely comfortable and I couldnt feel them at ALL I
would wear them them. Yesterday I wore them for 6 hours. My eyes felt
fine at first but they slowly dried out then I was blinking hard and
often. The last hour they really irritated my eyes and my eyes actually
begin to hurt! I couldnt wait to rip them out! Instantly my eyes felt
much better but still a little irritated. When I put my glasses on I
experienced spectacle blur and it looked like I was looking thru dirty
glasses but the lenses had been cleaned perfectly. The mild irritation
in my eyes lasted all night. I never wore contacts much and never will.
Maybe an hour or two once in a while is all ill be doing. My eyes are
too valuable to let suffer from contacts!
I know lasik is risky too and I have researched comparing the two. From
my research, sleeping in your contacts is riskier than refractive
surgury. Careful wear of contacts and proper steralization of them and
never sleeping in them may be safer than RS but not completely risk
free. I warn people NOT to sleep in contacts but many dont listen! My
own optometrist warns others too. He told me people come in all the
time with ruined eyes from sleeping in their contacts. They would have
been better off getting LASEK frankly.
Does anyone agree with me?
sleeping in contacts vs. surface ablation RS
careful wear of contacts vs. surface ablation RS
Which of the two above is riskier? I think the sleeping part is but if
you have careful wear, its less risky than RS
| |
|
|
| Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.com 2005-11-28, 12:57 pm |
| Dr. Greg Gemoules, who is affiliated with the TLC center in Arlington,
states that "The risk of contracting an eye infection from a daily wear
contact lens is 1 in 10,000. With extended wear, it is 1 in about 500.
Of those, only 13 percent will lose a line or more of vision as a
result. This makes contact lenses a factor of 1,000 times safer than
LASIK".
You can view the complete text of his statement in Adobe Acrobat format
by clicking here:
http://www.lasikfraud.com/articles/gemoules-salon.pdf
| |
| Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.com 2005-11-28, 12:57 pm |
| I would encourage people to use their real names when posting articles.
I use my own name when posting articles.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-11-28, 12:57 pm |
| If Minarik had a set of balls, he would dare to dispute you directly
rather than spew his garbage to no one in particular.
My differences with you are trivial and minor. Minarik on the other
hand is nuts and it is incredible that he is a practicing doctor. But
then again, there is a local back pain surgeon in Tampa that killed 5
patients within a 6 month period with toxic drug overdoses, then got
arrested for hiring child prostitutes... and he still has his license.
On 27 Nov 2005 14:03:24 -0800, wtrattler@earthlink.net wrote:
>I find it ironic when a group of refractive surgery haters picks on a
>person who donates their time helping people with questions or problems
>after refractive surgery. The best part is they take excepts of my
>comments or replies to them...and then post them on this website as if
>I am taling to everyone. Case in point is my recent posting at
>AskLasikdocs explaining that contact lenses have risks - including
>blindness. I am currently caring for more than 2 dozen patients with
>central corneal scars from contact lens-related infections. These
>patients range from age 11 to age 60. The 11 year old girl developed
>an acanthamoeba infection from her contact lens wear - and head to
>endure 6 months of triple antibiotic therapy to clear her infectiom.
>She unfortunately still has a central scar, which limits her vision.
> The point is - everything has risks. Of course - in my reply to
>these individuals (who change their name online so much that I do not
>even know what name to call them) - I said if you are lobbying against
>LASIK, you might as well lobby against contact lenses. Obviously my
>comments were directed solely at the indiviual person - as I recommend
>contact lenses all of the time to my patients, and lecture on the
>proper use of contact lenses in patients with dry eye.
> I think it becomes pretty obvious why there are not more doctors
>participating on these bulletin boards, answering patient questions,
>etc. Then again - these people want to get rid of all of the doctors
>online so that only their voice is heard.
>
>Best regards to everyone
>
>Bill Trattler, MD
>Miami, FL
| |
| Ragnar 2005-11-28, 5:59 pm |
| I would hardly call LASIK risky. Its the most widely done surgical
procedure ever, the most predictable and precise also. The tissue
ablated does not regenerate so the correction is permanent.
I shouldn't say this.. but with rigid contact lenses, I had much
better luck not taking them out unless they gave me trouble. And when
they do give you trouble, rinse them off thoroughly, put them in, take
them right back out again, rinse them again, and then put them in.
"Dry" lenses do much better on an eye surface that is not covered with
lubricant. The opposite is true for soft contacts.
Also, with soft contacts, I believe the times of sterilization are
gone. Instead, the lenses are now disposable. Rigid contacts don't
get surface deposits so sterilization is not a problem.
On 27 Nov 2005 17:01:45 -0800, "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Let me chime in. I am not much of a fan of contact lenses either. I
>guess them being an irritant and drying my eyes out is good reason why.
>If they were completely comfortable and I couldnt feel them at ALL I
>would wear them them. Yesterday I wore them for 6 hours. My eyes felt
>fine at first but they slowly dried out then I was blinking hard and
>often. The last hour they really irritated my eyes and my eyes actually
>begin to hurt! I couldnt wait to rip them out! Instantly my eyes felt
>much better but still a little irritated. When I put my glasses on I
>experienced spectacle blur and it looked like I was looking thru dirty
>glasses but the lenses had been cleaned perfectly. The mild irritation
>in my eyes lasted all night. I never wore contacts much and never will.
>Maybe an hour or two once in a while is all ill be doing. My eyes are
>too valuable to let suffer from contacts!
>
>I know lasik is risky too and I have researched comparing the two. From
>my research, sleeping in your contacts is riskier than refractive
>surgury. Careful wear of contacts and proper steralization of them and
>never sleeping in them may be safer than RS but not completely risk
>free. I warn people NOT to sleep in contacts but many dont listen! My
>own optometrist warns others too. He told me people come in all the
>time with ruined eyes from sleeping in their contacts. They would have
>been better off getting LASEK frankly.
>
>Does anyone agree with me?
>
>sleeping in contacts vs. surface ablation RS
>careful wear of contacts vs. surface ablation RS
>
>Which of the two above is riskier? I think the sleeping part is but if
>you have careful wear, its less risky than RS
| |
| ycdbsoya 2005-11-28, 5:59 pm |
| The most widely performed surgical procedure ever performed is the
tonsillectomy.
The LASIK correction is not necessarily permanent.
Rigid contacts accumulate deposits and must be periodically cleaned and
sterilized.
| |
| ycdbsoya 2005-11-28, 5:59 pm |
| The most widely performed surgical procedure ever performed is the
tonsillectomy.
The LASIK correction is not necessarily permanent.
Rigid contacts accumulate deposits and must be periodically cleaned and
sterilized.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-11-28, 5:59 pm |
| Dr. Trattler or any doctor would have to be a certified XXXXXXX to
allow you to post / pollute their website.
Bill, Eye, and Lasiksucks also need to be deleted. At least 2 of
those posters are Hanson.
On 28 Nov 2005 08:53:46 -0800, "Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.com"
<administrator@lasikcourt.com> wrote:
>http://www.lasikflap.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=27
| |
| Ragnar 2005-11-28, 5:59 pm |
| Dr. Greg Gemoules is full of it.
On 28 Nov 2005 08:59:39 -0800, "Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.com"
<administrator@lasikcourt.com> wrote:
>Dr. Greg Gemoules, who is affiliated with the TLC center in Arlington,
>states that "The risk of contracting an eye infection from a daily wear
>contact lens is 1 in 10,000. With extended wear, it is 1 in about 500.
>Of those, only 13 percent will lose a line or more of vision as a
>result. This makes contact lenses a factor of 1,000 times safer than
>LASIK".
>
>You can view the complete text of his statement in Adobe Acrobat format
>by clicking here:
>http://www.lasikfraud.com/articles/gemoules-salon.pdf
| |
| Ragnar 2005-11-28, 5:59 pm |
| You must think everyone in this newsgroup is stupid if you think we
don't know your game of unending new aliases.
On 28 Nov 2005 09:15:03 -0800, "Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.com"
<administrator@lasikcourt.com> wrote:
>I would encourage people to use their real names when posting articles.
> I use my own name when posting articles.
| |
| Trulytelling@yahoo.com 2005-11-29, 1:01 am |
| I currently speak to more than two dozen patients who are or have been
suicidal from a botched refractive surgery outcome. And I do something
ELSE for a living. You know that permanent contact lens complications,
especially from acanthamoeba eye infection are incredibly rare. Shame
on you.
There is a patient on your board NOW who had her flap ripped in half
during her LASIK procedure. You told her a surface treatment on her
flap would give her the outcome she expected. You can't promise a good
outcome for someone who isn't going into surgery with a torn flap from
a prior LASIK. A young man I know had a surface treatment by a *famous*
surgeon about a year ago and has BCVA of 20/50. Lost his home, job. No
torn flap going in. Just heathy corneas and good correctable vision he
wishes could be restored.
Have you noticed that the refractive surgery damage turning up on your
board is alarming?
Here are a few tidbits you already know:
1 in 5 patients in the VISX wavefront trials didn't hit 20/20 at 12
months.
13% of LASIK patients experience PVD.
100% of lasik patients have microstriae.
100% of refractive surgery patients have corneal nerve damage
100% of refractive surgery patients have thinner, weakened corneas
Almost all, if not all, virgin eyes receive induced corneal distortions
from refractive surgery.
Since refractive surgery is demonstrated to induce higher order
aberrations, cause corneal nerve damage and structurally compromise the
cornea it's apalling that these surgeries are still being performed.
Comparing the risk to the eye of contact lens wear with the risks of
refractive surgery is absurd.
There's no irony that a group of individuals would take issue with some
of Dr. William Trattler's behaviors.
To name a few:
1. Backing out as an expert witness for patients damaged by refractive
surgery.
2. Failing to support legitimate claims of damage for a refractive
surgery patient in a chart review.
3. Using deceptive language to mislead patients on asklasikdocs.com
(the website formerly known as askrecklessbill.com, I believe).
Dr. William Trattler said:
"I said if you are lobbying against LASIK, you might as well lobby
against contact lenses. Obviously my comments were directed solely at
the indiviual person - as I recommend contact lenses all of the time to
my patients, and lecture on the proper use of contact lenses in
patients with dry eye. "
I think you made that contact lens remark in 1999 - how is it obvious
your comments were directed solely at one person? They were not
directed at me in 1999 - I was happily wearing glasses and enjoying
excellent correctable vision with no eye pain in 1999.
If I said something that goofy I'd be really ashamed as well. Here's
what you said:
http://asklasikdocs.com/forum/other/106.html
3. "LASIK question"
Posted by William B. Trattler, MD
Excerpt:
My last comment is to inform some of the LASIK bashers that one of the
alternatives to LASIK - contact lenses - can also be a serious health
risk to the eye. As a cornea specialist, I take care of contact
lens-associated corneal infections on a daily basis. Many patients in
the United States go blind every day from the use of contact lenses
(especially when patients sleep in them). So please also lobby against
the use of contact lenses if you want to reduce the risk of eye injury
in the U.S.
Bill Trattler, MD
Miami,FL
Dr. William Trattler, as a refractive surgeon you are certainly no
champion of visual quality or eye health. You have damaged every eye on
which you performed corneal refractive surgery. Refractive surgeons are
not healers... they're more like sociopath-entrepeneurs.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-11-29, 1:01 am |
| So...a patient could have their corneas thinned but not made unstable
by laser removal of tissue including nerve tissue under a LASIK flap
that might have sub-clinical striae and may experience vision
abnormalities during the healing process, and although not everyone
will achieve Snellen 20/20 vision after the surgery 4 out of 5 (your
numbers, not mine) will have vision after surgery without glasses that
is equal to or better than their vision before surgery with glasses.
It is amazing how you misrepresent the truth.
>Here are a few tidbits you already know:
>1 in 5 patients in the VISX wavefront trials didn't hit 20/20 at 12
>months.
We officially state that 50% of refractive surgery patients will
achieve Snellen 20/20. You are stating that it is actually 80%.
>13% of LASIK patients experience PVD.
Many will "experience" blurring, dry eyes, fluctuation, etc., because
refractive surgery is more of a six month process than a 20-Minute
Miracle. During that process the patient will "experience" many
irregularities until they are resolved with healing or treatment.
While everyone would prefer to not have the occurrence of any
complications or limitations, there is a big difference between
OCCURRANCE and UNRESOLVED complications.
>100% of lasik patients have microstriae.
Sub-clinical striae may exist but not cause a degradation in vision
quality.
>100% of refractive surgery patients have corneal nerve damage
Removal of tissue is a requirement in cornea-based refractive surgery.
Included in that tissue is nerve tissue that will be "damaged" by its
removal. Like other issues you have raised, the fact that there is a
change does not necessarily mean that there is degradation of vision
quality or any long-term harm. Change is, after all, the goal of the
surgery.
>100% of refractive surgery patients have thinner, weakened corneas
Thinner yes, weaker perhaps, but weak to the point of causing problems
is very, very rare. Again, change is the goal and a part of that
change is to remove tissue.
>Almost all, if not all, virgin eyes receive induced corneal distortions
>from refractive surgery.
It is true that the majority of cornea-based patients have an increase
of higher order aberrations, but the vast majority do not have a
degradation in vision quality.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
"Consider and Choose With Confidence"
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| serebel 2005-11-29, 1:01 am |
| What a pile of crap! "Truelies" expects anyone to believe he/she
"speaks" to more than two dozen suicidal patients. Even the loon sites
don't have suicidal patients. They've been posting for years so there's
no chance of them being suicidal.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-11-29, 10:59 am |
| Tonsillectomy? are you completely insane?
That is far from the most widely performed surgery.
It used to be cataract surgery.
On 28 Nov 2005 14:25:26 -0800, "ycdbsoya" <the_boydstons@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>The most widely performed surgical procedure ever performed is the
>tonsillectomy.
>
>The LASIK correction is not necessarily permanent.
>
>Rigid contacts accumulate deposits and must be periodically cleaned and
>sterilized.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-11-29, 10:59 am |
| That is all a load of complete nonsense.
On 28 Nov 2005 17:43:58 -0800, Trulytelling@yahoo.com wrote:
>I currently speak to more than two dozen patients who are or have been
>suicidal from a botched refractive surgery outcome. And I do something
>ELSE for a living. You know that permanent contact lens complications,
>especially from acanthamoeba eye infection are incredibly rare. Shame
>on you.
>
>There is a patient on your board NOW who had her flap ripped in half
>during her LASIK procedure. You told her a surface treatment on her
>flap would give her the outcome she expected. You can't promise a good
>outcome for someone who isn't going into surgery with a torn flap from
>a prior LASIK. A young man I know had a surface treatment by a *famous*
>surgeon about a year ago and has BCVA of 20/50. Lost his home, job. No
>torn flap going in. Just heathy corneas and good correctable vision he
>wishes could be restored.
>
>Have you noticed that the refractive surgery damage turning up on your
>board is alarming?
>
>Here are a few tidbits you already know:
>1 in 5 patients in the VISX wavefront trials didn't hit 20/20 at 12
>months.
>13% of LASIK patients experience PVD.
>100% of lasik patients have microstriae.
>100% of refractive surgery patients have corneal nerve damage
>100% of refractive surgery patients have thinner, weakened corneas
>Almost all, if not all, virgin eyes receive induced corneal distortions
>from refractive surgery.
>
>Since refractive surgery is demonstrated to induce higher order
>aberrations, cause corneal nerve damage and structurally compromise the
>cornea it's apalling that these surgeries are still being performed.
>Comparing the risk to the eye of contact lens wear with the risks of
>refractive surgery is absurd.
>
>There's no irony that a group of individuals would take issue with some
>of Dr. William Trattler's behaviors.
>To name a few:
>
>1. Backing out as an expert witness for patients damaged by refractive
>surgery.
>
>2. Failing to support legitimate claims of damage for a refractive
>surgery patient in a chart review.
>
>3. Using deceptive language to mislead patients on asklasikdocs.com
>(the website formerly known as askrecklessbill.com, I believe).
>
>Dr. William Trattler said:
>"I said if you are lobbying against LASIK, you might as well lobby
>against contact lenses. Obviously my comments were directed solely at
>the indiviual person - as I recommend contact lenses all of the time to
>my patients, and lecture on the proper use of contact lenses in
>patients with dry eye. "
>
>I think you made that contact lens remark in 1999 - how is it obvious
>your comments were directed solely at one person? They were not
>directed at me in 1999 - I was happily wearing glasses and enjoying
>excellent correctable vision with no eye pain in 1999.
>
>If I said something that goofy I'd be really ashamed as well. Here's
>what you said:
>
>http://asklasikdocs.com/forum/other/106.html
>
>3. "LASIK question"
>Posted by William B. Trattler, MD
>Excerpt:
>My last comment is to inform some of the LASIK bashers that one of the
>alternatives to LASIK - contact lenses - can also be a serious health
>risk to the eye. As a cornea specialist, I take care of contact
>lens-associated corneal infections on a daily basis. Many patients in
>the United States go blind every day from the use of contact lenses
>(especially when patients sleep in them). So please also lobby against
>the use of contact lenses if you want to reduce the risk of eye injury
>in the U.S.
>
>Bill Trattler, MD
>Miami,FL
>
>Dr. William Trattler, as a refractive surgeon you are certainly no
>champion of visual quality or eye health. You have damaged every eye on
>which you performed corneal refractive surgery. Refractive surgeons are
>not healers... they're more like sociopath-entrepeneurs.
|
| |
|
|