|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > February 2005 > Dry Eye info please?
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 |
Dry Eye info please?
|
|
|
| Ragnar, since my eyes have become very pruny, I find this entire
discussion absolutely fascinating. As you've already been so very
generous in sharing your knowledge here, I'm sure you won't mind
divulging which particular medical dictionaries, ophthalmological texts
and lacrimal specialists you've consulted for your amazing grasp of dry
eye. We should all like to be so well informed!
[vbcol=seagreen]
> And while you are at it, we are back on this dry eye thing again.
> Dry eyes are not the same as the condition known as dry eye.
> Dry eye is a very serious condition.
>...Just because someone has dry eyes does not mean they have
> "Dry Eye" which is a serious condition in which the eye
> can shriviel up like a prune.
>
| |
|
|
| Ragnar 2005-01-28, 8:11 am |
| Glad to be of service Xeno!
What are you doing for your pruny eyes? If you have TRUE dry eye,
Restasis is something for you to consider..
Listing off the information you requested would take too long and be
very boring and a waste of time for me. I have a paypal account, if
you would like a dissertation on the subject, I could make one for you
for $99. That's a bargain actually.
On 27 Jan 2005 20:47:07 -0800, "xeno" <xenoparadox@peacemail.com>
wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Ragnar, since my eyes have become very pruny, I find this entire
>discussion absolutely fascinating. As you've already been so very
>generous in sharing your knowledge here, I'm sure you won't mind
>divulging which particular medical dictionaries, ophthalmological texts
>and lacrimal specialists you've consulted for your amazing grasp of dry
>eye. We should all like to be so well informed!
>
>
| |
|
| That's the most pitiful excuse for an excuse I've ever seen. One load
of bullsh*t can't disguise another load of bullsh*t. Get real.
Ragnar wrote:
> Glad to be of service Xeno!
> What are you doing for your pruny eyes? If you have TRUE dry eye,
> Restasis is something for you to consider..
>
> Listing off the information you requested would take too long and be
> very boring and a waste of time for me. I have a paypal account, if
> you would like a dissertation on the subject, I could make one for
you[vbcol=seagreen]
> for $99. That's a bargain actually.
>
>
>
>
> On 27 Jan 2005 20:47:07 -0800, "xeno" <xenoparadox@peacemail.com>
> wrote:
>
texts[vbcol=seagreen]
dry[vbcol=seagreen]
| |
| gospa68@aol.com 2005-02-03, 11:07 am |
| The incidence of post-LASIK dry eye has been estimated to be as high as
50%. The degree of dryness, however, varies from mild to severe. The
testimony of Morris Waxler, former FDA official, in the Alcon laser
case sheds some light on why many, if not all, LASIK complications are
under-reported. I have included a portion of this testimony below. WK
In tesitmony by Morris Waxler, a former FDA official, it appear?s that
there is also a disconnect between the industry and the FDA.? Dr.
Waxler, in the following testimony, talks about the problem ?of
under-reporting.
MR. HARRIS: And if the doctors were never told by Alcon that? 10.5
percent, operating above 10.5 percent retreatment rate was a? problem,
they might not even know that, true?
DR. WAXLER: That's true. It's really an interesting situat?ion where
the, both the panel and Dr. Rosenthal explicitly stated in t?heir panel
meeting that the retreatment rate was an important part, and? it was
required of all manufacturers in response to panel members q?uestions,
and it was in the labeling, and it is in the labeling for al?l the
machines, not just Alcons. And the fact that neither Alcon n?or
apparently the agency or apparently the docs have emphasized? that
feature of the requirements doesn't mean it's not a problem.? It means
that there's been some serious problem in communication abou?t the
importance of retreatment and a lack of understanding of, of? paying
attention to it. And I think the manufacturer, you know, it'?s their
machine. I mean, to be honest with you, I mean, the manufac?turer
incurs a heavy responsibility, and I feel for them because t?hey
really,
you know, anybody can use their machine. They sell it to peo?ple. They
don't -- they can't keep track of their outcomes. It's quit?e true.
They depend on these docs to report to them. But they also -?- those
docs depend on accurate information from the company about w?hat was
expected in terms of, you know, what's an acceptable retreat?ment rate?
And I don't know from firsthand knowledge what, what Alcon
c?ommunicated
to its docs about what is an acceptable retreatment rate.
|
| |
|
|