Lasik Eyes Surgery - Texas Woman sues Alcon

Author

Texas Woman sues Alcon

gospa68@aol.com

2005-03-19, 6:21 pm

Texas Woman Sues Maker of LADARVision
Victim says eyes were injured by Alcon Laser System

Dallas, TX (PRWEB) February 4, 2005 -- A Lubbock County, Texas woman is
suing the Fort Worth maker of a laser system used by doctors to perform
LASIK eye surgery. According to the lawsuit, Sandra Brown v. Alcon
Manufacturing, L.T.D. and Alcon Laboratories, Inc., the LADARVision
laser is defective (Case #236-209603-05 District Court Tarrant County
Texas 236th Judicial District). The lawsuit accuses Alcon of ignoring
warnings that may have prevented additional injuries.

A surgeon performed LASIK surgery on Dr. Brown, a fellow
ophthalmologist, in April 2001, using the LADARVision laser. During the
surgery, the laser performed erratically and removed too little tissue
in an asymmetrical pattern from Dr. Brown's eyes. As a result, she
sustained permanent damage to her eyes resulting in limited vision.
Unfortunately for Dr. Brown, at this time, her vision cannot be
repaired by medical or surgical interventions.

"I specifically waited for the LADARVision laser machine before
having my surgery, and the wait cost me my vision," says Dr. Brown.
"I now have to live with damaged vision because of a defect in
Alcon's laser. When I started looking into my problem, I realized that
I was not alone and many other people have likewise been hurt by this
same problem."

While horror stories associated with laser vision correction are not
new, recent disturbing news about the Alcon LADARVision laser may cause
victims to consider whether harm to their eyes was caused by the laser
and not doctors and medical staff.

"In the past, poor surgeries were usually blamed on the surgeon,"
says attorney Joel Fineberg, who represents Dr. Brown. "There is now
mounting evidence that the Alcon LADARVision laser is at the heart of
many of these problems."

Surgeons throughout the country are questioning the effectiveness of
the laser. In addition, an article authored by an Alcon consultant in
the April 2003 issue of Opthalmology, reveals that patients treated
with the LADARVision laser are twice as likely to need follow-up
surgery. According to an investigative report in the London Times the
rate of required retreatment might be even higher.

"Patients go in expecting to come out with clearer vision, and many
times they come out with permanent damage," says Mr. Fineberg.
"What we have here is a company that has decided to ignore serious
concerns, raised by a physician, about the safety of their product."

To speak with Joel Fineberg about problems associated with Alcon's
LADARVision, contact Joel Fineberg at (214)219-8828 or Mike Androvett
at (800)559-4534.

rebeccaNO_SPAM@lasermyeye.org

2005-03-19, 6:21 pm

gospa68@aol.com wrote:
> Texas Woman Sues Maker of LADARVision
> Victim says eyes were injured by Alcon Laser System

This was reported on by CBS (Dallas/Fort Worth) as well:

http://cbs11tv.com/localnews/local_story_035143742.html

Difficult to understand how lawsuits by patients (and this is not the
first) against Alcon can be passed off as "allegations...made by former
customers, who have been sued by Alcon for non-payment of multi-million
dollar debts". That line of PR is getting more than a little worn out.

I think that it is also strange that Alcon has in its current statement
taken to preening itself on being so safety-conscious that it initiated
two field service recalls in 2000-2001. Those two recalls were the
result of the very first two MDRs (one of which involved a patient
injury) which were filed on the device with the FDA. Many subsequent
MDRs that were filed over the last four years state that serious injury
or disability resulted. But no such action taken in those cases as in
the first two. The most common answer placed on the file seems to be
"We came, we saw, we callibrated, machine seems fine to us, case
closed."

Rebecca Petris
www.lasermyeye.org
www.alconladarvision.com

serebel

2005-03-19, 6:21 pm

What the loonie fringe won't tell you here, is that just about every
laser system, doctor, etc. gets sued from time to time. Means nothing.
These alcon suits are now just allegations. No one knows how this will
pan out. What I do know, Ladarvision was my laser and the one which was
used on the people I personnally know, and all are just fine.

SErebel

rebeccaNO_SPAM@lasermyeye.org

2005-03-19, 6:21 pm

serebel wrote:
> What the loonie fringe won't tell you here, is that just about every
> laser system, doctor, etc. gets sued from time to time. Means
nothing.

Can you cite an example of a laser manufacturer being sued for
allegedly defective lasers, whether by a patient, surgeon or financier?

> These alcon suits are now just allegations. No one knows how this
will
> pan out.

Quite. And as such, the public has the right to know. Where there is
smoke that doesn't go away no matter how hard you blow, there may just
be fire.

What I do know, Ladarvision was my laser and the one which was
> used on the people I personnally know, and all are just fine.

Irrelevant. No one has claimed that all the lasers are defective or
that all patients (or a majority) are harmed.

Rebecca Petris
www.lasermyeye.org

serebel

2005-03-19, 6:21 pm

rebeccaNO_SPAM@lasermyeye.org wrote:
> serebel wrote:
every[vbcol=seagreen]
> nothing.
>
> Can you cite an example of a laser manufacturer being sued for
> allegedly defective lasers, whether by a patient, surgeon or
financier?
>
No, but it would be a logical assumption. What lawyer wouldn't go
after the deep pockets of a manufacturer as part of a suit?

>
> Quite. And as such, the public has the right to know. Where there is
> smoke that doesn't go away no matter how hard you blow, there may
just
> be fire.
>
You and your loonies have Alcon tried and convicted already.

> Irrelevant. No one has claimed that all the lasers are defective or
> that all patients (or a majority) are harmed.
>

VERY relevant. The way it appears on your website, there are nothing
but blind zombies thanks to Alcon.

SErebel

rebeccaNO_SPAM@lasermyeye.org

2005-03-19, 6:21 pm

serebel wrote:

> No, but it would be a logical assumption. What lawyer wouldn't go
> after the deep pockets of a manufacturer as part of a suit?

I agree it sounds logical but I don't think it's accurate. As you say,
most surgeons have lawsuits from time to time. There have also been
class-action lawsuits occasionally against microkeratome manufacturers
or individual clinics. But an excimer laser manufacturer? I've NEVER
heard of even one, ever, at least not that had anything to do with
performance of the lasers. If I'm wrong I'm quite happy to be
corrected.

>
> VERY relevant. The way it appears on your website, there are nothing
> but blind zombies thanks to Alcon.

Not at all. Like you, I know many satisfied LADARVision patients. It
would be ridiculous to suggest that bad outcomes are happening
routinely.

doctor_my_eye@msn.com

2005-03-19, 6:21 pm

Rebel, you ignorant slut. (with respectful nod to Dan Akroyd). You
cheapen your defense of the whole industry when you defend Alcon. The
reality is that all lasers have to be "different" or they would be
guilty of patent violations. There are some very serious allegations
here, and they involve the concept that in order to be "different" the
designers of the Alcon machine used logerithms and basic constructs in
the design of their machine that were defective, and as a result their
error rate is significantly higher. NO-ONE has ever said that all
surgeries done on your favorite machine go bad. They ARE saying that
the error rate is unacceptable.
serebel wrote:
> rebeccaNO_SPAM@lasermyeye.org wrote:
> every
> financier?
> No, but it would be a logical assumption. What lawyer wouldn't go
> after the deep pockets of a manufacturer as part of a suit?
>
>
is[vbcol=seagreen]
> just
> You and your loonies have Alcon tried and convicted already.
>
>
>
> VERY relevant. The way it appears on your website, there are nothing
> but blind zombies thanks to Alcon.
>
> SErebel

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2005-03-19, 6:21 pm

Rebecca, or anyone else:

Have any of the accusations of malfunction against the Alcon
LADARvision 4000 from any source been proven in a court of law,
peer-reviewed clinical study, or FDA evaluation? If so, please cite
the instances.

Ragnar

2005-03-19, 6:21 pm

The surgeons run tests on pieces of plastic to verify that their laser
is performing properly. If a laser system is not performing properly,
the surgeon had better not stick a patient in that chair.

Even if the laser was malfuncitoning, it's the surgeon's
responsibility to make sure his equipment is working properly.

On 5 Feb 2005 12:04:28 -0800, "Glenn - USAEyes.org"
<glenn.hagele@usaeyes.org> wrote:

>Rebecca, or anyone else:
>
>Have any of the accusations of malfunction against the Alcon
>LADARvision 4000 from any source been proven in a court of law,
>peer-reviewed clinical study, or FDA evaluation? If so, please cite
>the instances.

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2005-03-19, 6:21 pm

My question is not of ultimate responsibility. My question is one of
proof. Has anyone proven the accusations that the Alcon excimer laser
is defective in a court of law, peer-reviewed clinical study, or FDA
evaluation?

doctor_my_eye@msn.com

2005-03-19, 6:21 pm

Not yet, Glenn...not yet. I think that the Alcon Laser is going to be
the most litigated piece of high tech medical equipment in the past 20
years. As you know, court cases have "a life of their own" and the
accusations are causing copycat suits to be filed on a weekly basis
now.

Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:
> My question is not of ultimate responsibility. My question is one of
> proof. Has anyone proven the accusations that the Alcon excimer
laser
> is defective in a court of law, peer-reviewed clinical study, or FDA
> evaluation?

serebel

2005-03-19, 6:21 pm

rebeccaNO_SPAM@lasermyeye.org wrote:
nothing[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Not at all. Like you, I know many satisfied LADARVision patients. It
> would be ridiculous to suggest that bad outcomes are happening
> routinely.

Let's go with this, Minarik is right where lawsuits do take on a life
of their own. Once the class actions start, the lawyers beat the
daylight out of it forever.

Rebecca, you have to admit, your website is joining in on this clubbing
of Alcon. Yet, I have yet to see one person post on your site, I HAVE
BEEN HARMED BY THE ALCON LASER SYSTEM. Why?

SErebel

rebeccaNO_SPAM@lasermyeye.org

2005-03-19, 6:21 pm

serebel wrote:

>
> Rebecca, you have to admit, your website is joining in on this
clubbing
> of Alcon.

Cue the violins.

I daresay a multi billion dollar company, with a parent that is the
largest food company in the world, is able to protect itself, if the
claims are spurious.

My site makes no claims of its own about the LADARVision. I am simply
reporting on the investigations and allegations and lawsuits and press
that are occurring, and stating that I consider them so serious, and
the mounting evidence (including Alcon's own internal data and the
conference call between its executives and various surgeons) and
testimony (including by Dr Waxler, one of the most knowledgeable people
in the world on regulatory affairs as they relate to excimer lasers) of
such great concern, that patients should be cautioned and at the very
least they have a right to know this is going on. Few people are
reached by my site, so you need not be so earnestly protective of the
corporate giants.

Alcon could have cleared this up long ago very quickly and simply, by
publishing a few basic facts such as their own records of the
retreatment rates - if those were exculpatory. That they have not done
so, and the fact that in the process of the ongoing lawsuits they have
for months and months fought to prevent that data ever seeing the light
of day, is probably one of the strongest points against them. If their
retreatment rates were in fact acceptable, they would just produce them
and end this story, rather than risk further revelations. An Alcon
contract administrator was deposed last July who made it clear that
their computer's records of retreatment data can be (and is regularly)
produced at the press of a button. If that data supported their claims,
why would they be so foolhardy as to fail to produce it?

Do a web search and you will find that there were similar websites
about Firestone tires while the situation was evolving. I suppose there
were probably also people like you guys around saying happy customers
vastly outnumber those who were injured or killed and in any case
people die in cars with all different kinds of tires, not just
Firestone.

> Yet, I have yet to see one person post on your site, I HAVE
> BEEN HARMED BY THE ALCON LASER SYSTEM. Why?

They prefer email or phone.

You know, you have given me a good idea - perhaps I should start a blog
to record them, sans personal details.

2005-03-19, 6:21 pm

SErebel, Ragnar and others who play down the Alcon thing:

I understand why you are in complete support of LASIK, but what I don't
understand is why you dismiss a potential problem that could give all of
LASIK a bad name.

No procedure or equipment is perfect. Given the science and the technology
ALL LASIK outcomes should be perfect. However, there do remain some bad
outcomes that cannot be explained--the candidates were "perfect." Could those
not be attributable to defective equipment? Shouldn't that equipment be
investigated and then culled from general use?

--
~RT

________________________________________________

Hogwasher, Premier News and Mail for OS X
http://www.asar.com/cgi-bin/product.../hogwasher.html
________________________________________________

Ragnar

2005-03-19, 6:21 pm

Alll LASIK procedures should be perfect. One thing that is a danger
is that it's so perfect that some surgeons cut corners. For instance,
their laser ssytems are supposed to be tested regularly. If the
system is working perfectly for a long time, they get lazy or
complacent and stop doing their testing. These lazy surgeons wind up
using the corneas of their patients as their "tests" to find out if
their system is working instead of a piece of plastic.
A certain vision institute knowingly used a defective laser system for
months before its results go so bad that they would not even use that
laser anymore. They wound up either using their Nidek system instead,
or sending patients 100 miles away to another of their centers.

An excimer laser needs to be constantly calibrated.

On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 14:02:26 GMT, RT <RTMD24@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

>SErebel, Ragnar and others who play down the Alcon thing:
>
>I understand why you are in complete support of LASIK, but what I don't
>understand is why you dismiss a potential problem that could give all of
>LASIK a bad name.
>
>No procedure or equipment is perfect. Given the science and the technology
>ALL LASIK outcomes should be perfect. However, there do remain some bad
>outcomes that cannot be explained--the candidates were "perfect." Could those
>not be attributable to defective equipment? Shouldn't that equipment be
>investigated and then culled from general use?

rebeccaNO_SPAM@lasermyeye.org

2005-03-19, 6:21 pm

doctor_my_eye@msn.com wrote:

> As you know, ... the
> accusations are causing copycat suits to be filed on a weekly basis
> now.

Dr M,

That is news to me. Do you know of any other suits than the four that
are posted at http://www.alconladarvision.com/lawsuits.html? I don't
think there are other lawsuits yet though I know of several in
preparation.

I think that while this situation is becoming increasingly well known
in the legal community, most of the lawyers are sitting on their heels
and waiting till the whole thing breaks into the general press at a
national level. The situation is complex, and although the regulatory
issues are simple enough to those who know them thoroughly, they are
very difficult to sort through from scratch without help.

Most patients with a poor outcome assume it's either the doctor's fault
or just bad luck, except for those who actually had the laser shut down
right in the middle of the ablation. Interestingly enough quite a few
of those are starting to come out of the woodwork as well.

I think that unless the surgeon him/herself agrees to support the
position that the laser was at fault, it would be a very difficult
prospect to try to pursue a suit against Alcon unless for example you
had access to everything that has come out in the course of the EBW
lawsuit. But it is not realistic to expect that the surgeon WILL
support the case (unless they abandoned the laser, and I've written
before about what a daunting prospect that is too).

Put yourself in the surgeon's shoes: Are you going to be willing to go
to bat in court against the manufacturer saying that his device is
defective, when you've been using that device on several hundred
patients a month for a couple of years? How difficult do you think it
would be for the defense to discredit your testimony on the basis that
you have continued to use that device despite supposedly thinking it
had malfunctioned so badly as to cause a serious injury (i.e. you're
either lying or putting your patients in jeopardy)? And how do you
think your other patients (especially those with, say, minor injuries
or who had to be retreated) will feel about it when they read it in the
paper? That's one of the reasons why this dam has been so slow to give.
But the cracks are showing now, and water is leaking out. It's only a
matter of time.

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2005-03-19, 6:21 pm

Perhaps Rebecca should take a look at the silicone breast implant case.
This is an instance where people were "coming out of the woodwork"
with all sorts of problems. Where accusations abounded. Where suit
after suit was filed. Where the company eventually went bankrupt.
Where there was ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with the implants.

It is disengenous for Rebecca to say not many people read her website
or that she is just repeating the accusations of others or even that
the public needs to know, because she consistently provides only one
side of the story and with clear deliberance refuses to allow any
dissenting voice.

Rebecca, do you not think the public needs to know Alcon's response to
these accusations? Do you not think the public should know that when a
patient who has problems from another laser or another surgeon seeks
Complex Wavefront Retreatment with the Alcon LADARvision 4000 that it
is counted as a "retreatment" by Alcon's internal accounting? Do you
not think the public should know that there have been scores of
peer-reviewed studies and multiple FDA trials that do not show anything
unusual about the Alcon excimer laser? Should the public not be
provided with the fact that the patient outcomes of one of the accusers
were evaluated by an independent organization and found to be within
the national norms? Apparently not. Apparently, at least within the
confines of her websites, Rebecca has decided that the public needs to
know only about the unproven accusations. Her justification? The
world's largest food company can defend themselves. Is that how you do
things Rebecca? If the entity being accused is big enough, there is no
reason to point out the mitigating facts and every reason to exclude
them.

doctor_my_eye@msn.com

2005-03-19, 6:21 pm

This is one can of worms I'm staying out of. Alcon has a tremendous
amount of "vertical depth" in the optical business. My favorite fourth
generation flouroquinalone antibiotic is Vigamox (by Alcon). When I
take a patient's "K" readings for new contact lens fitting I use a hand
held autokeratometer...by Alcon. My favorite disinfecting solution for
soft contact lenses is Opti-Free...by Alcon. That is another reason
why optometrists and ophthalmologists that don't even do refractive
surgery don't want to jump on the bandwagon to "trash talk" Alcon.

rebeccaNO_SPAM@lasermyeye.org wrote:
> doctor_my_eye@msn.com wrote:
>
>
> Dr M,
>
> That is news to me. Do you know of any other suits than the four that
> are posted at http://www.alconladarvision.com/lawsuits.html? I don't
> think there are other lawsuits yet though I know of several in
> preparation.
>
> I think that while this situation is becoming increasingly well known
> in the legal community, most of the lawyers are sitting on their
heels
> and waiting till the whole thing breaks into the general press at a
> national level. The situation is complex, and although the regulatory
> issues are simple enough to those who know them thoroughly, they are
> very difficult to sort through from scratch without help.
>
> Most patients with a poor outcome assume it's either the doctor's
fault
> or just bad luck, except for those who actually had the laser shut
down
> right in the middle of the ablation. Interestingly enough quite a few
> of those are starting to come out of the woodwork as well.
>
> I think that unless the surgeon him/herself agrees to support the
> position that the laser was at fault, it would be a very difficult
> prospect to try to pursue a suit against Alcon unless for example you
> had access to everything that has come out in the course of the EBW
> lawsuit. But it is not realistic to expect that the surgeon WILL
> support the case (unless they abandoned the laser, and I've written
> before about what a daunting prospect that is too).
>
> Put yourself in the surgeon's shoes: Are you going to be willing to
go
> to bat in court against the manufacturer saying that his device is
> defective, when you've been using that device on several hundred
> patients a month for a couple of years? How difficult do you think it
> would be for the defense to discredit your testimony on the basis
that
> you have continued to use that device despite supposedly thinking it
> had malfunctioned so badly as to cause a serious injury (i.e. you're
> either lying or putting your patients in jeopardy)? And how do you
> think your other patients (especially those with, say, minor injuries
> or who had to be retreated) will feel about it when they read it in
the
> paper? That's one of the reasons why this dam has been so slow to
give.
> But the cracks are showing now, and water is leaking out. It's only a
> matter of time.

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2005-03-19, 6:21 pm

Dr. M,

Since you have had the opportunity to work with Alcon at many different
levels in different divisions, is it your opinion that the
"personality" of Alcon as a corporate citizen is one that would ignore
such troubles with their laser if there appeared to be some truth to
these accusations?

Pimp in a Pimpmobile

2005-03-19, 6:21 pm

Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:

> It is disengenous for Rebecca to say not many people read her website
> or that she is just repeating the accusations of others or even that
> the public needs to know, because she consistently provides only one
> side of the story and with clear deliberance refuses to allow any
> dissenting voice.
>
> Rebecca, do you not think the public needs to know Alcon's response
to
> these accusations? Do you not think the public should know that when
a
> patient who has problems from another laser or another surgeon seeks
> Complex Wavefront Retreatment with the Alcon LADARvision 4000 that it
> is counted as a "retreatment" by Alcon's internal accounting? Do you
> not think the public should know that there have been scores of
> peer-reviewed studies and multiple FDA trials that do not show
anything
> unusual about the Alcon excimer laser? Should the public not be
> provided with the fact that the patient outcomes of one of the
accusers
> were evaluated by an independent organization and found to be within
> the national norms? Apparently not. Apparently, at least within the
> confines of her websites, Rebecca has decided that the public needs
to
> know only about the unproven accusations. Her justification? The
> world's largest food company can defend themselves. Is that how you
do
> things Rebecca? If the entity being accused is big enough, there is
no
> reason to point out the mitigating facts and every reason to exclude
> them.

Glenn, my friend, you are a pimp after my own heart. Such verbal
artistry the world rarely has the pleasure of witnessing. You could
spin the mugging of your own grandmother into an act of great
selflessness and persuade the world that Mother Teresa was a direct
descendant of Attila the Hun.

It is a thing beautiful to behold.

Kisses,

Pimp in a Pimpmobile
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Prevention

email to pimp in a pimpmobile at yahoo dot com

www.ilovealcon.com
www.andyoutoovisx.com

I am not an Alcon employee.

xeno

2005-03-19, 6:21 pm

Of course Glenn Hagele is going to defend Alcon BLINDLY. After all, he
makes his living by running a 501(c)(6), tax-exempt, trade
organization/business league, established to further the business
interests of a handful of refractive surgeons who pay him to do so. If
he were to acknowledge even the possibility that there might be some
truth to the allegations against Alcon, he would be chomping on one of
the nipples that nurses him, and that would NOT be very good for his
trade organization's "liquid assets." So, ummmm, does it come as any
surprise that he mentions breast implants in the same breath as Alcon?

The fundamental difference between the public advisory web site set up
by Rebecca and the trade organization web site run by Glenn is that
Rebecca very clearly and prominently states on the alconladarvision.com
site that it is owned and operated by LME, and furthermore, has gone to
some trouble to provide a detailed explanation of the site's why and
wherefore. Glenn, on the other hand, NOWHERE ON HIS SITE discloses his
true purpose and federal tax-exempt determination as a trade
organization, instead deliberately attempting to mislead the public by
stating that CRSQA is a "public benefit" corporation.

When repeatedly asked to explain why he hides his true purpose and tax
status from the public, Glenn has refused to answer that specific
question. When pressed to answer other basic questions about his trade
organization, requiring only simple numeric answers, rather than tell
the truth, he announced that he was crawling back under his rock. Alas,
THAT was too good to be true...

As long as he's baaaaaaack, we'll ask Glenn another question. This
one's a two-parter and a real toughie, so Glenn, you'll want to go get
your thinking cap.

PART ONE requires a simple numerical answer. (If necessary, you may
remove your shoes and socks and use your toes.)

1. How many CRSQA surgeons who use multiple lasers were initially
rejected on the basis of the results from one laser, but were then
invited by you to re-submit results from the other laser, and were then
accepted?

PART TWO is a simple "yes" or "no" answer. Shake your head for "no" or
nod for "yes." (Shaking your head from side to side means "no." Nodding
your head up and down means "yes.")

2. In those cases above, was their certification restricted to the
second laser platform?

Oh, heck, Glenn. While we're on a roll, here's another in our "50 Tough
Questions Glenn Hagele Won't Answer Truthfully."

3. Which laser's results were rejected, hmmmmmmm?
(Hint: What is N O C L A spelled backwards?)

.................................................................................................
CRSQA represents CRSQA surgeons and Glenn Hagele. Period.
.................................................................................................

Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:
> Perhaps Rebecca should take a look at the silicone breast implant
case.
> This is an instance where people were "coming out of the woodwork"
> with all sorts of problems. Where accusations abounded. Where suit
> after suit was filed. Where the company eventually went bankrupt.
> Where there was ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with the implants.
>
> It is disengenous for Rebecca to say not many people read her website
> or that she is just repeating the accusations of others or even that
> the public needs to know, because she consistently provides only one
> side of the story and with clear deliberance refuses to allow any
> dissenting voice.
>
> Rebecca, do you not think the public needs to know Alcon's response
to
> these accusations? Do you not think the public should know that when
a
> patient who has problems from another laser or another surgeon seeks
> Complex Wavefront Retreatment with the Alcon LADARvision 4000 that it
> is counted as a "retreatment" by Alcon's internal accounting? Do you
> not think the public should know that there have been scores of
> peer-reviewed studies and multiple FDA trials that do not show
anything
> unusual about the Alcon excimer laser? Should the public not be
> provided with the fact that the patient outcomes of one of the
accusers
> were evaluated by an independent organization and found to be within
> the national norms? Apparently not. Apparently, at least within the
> confines of her websites, Rebecca has decided that the public needs
to
> know only about the unproven accusations. Her justification? The
> world's largest food company can defend themselves. Is that how you
do
> things Rebecca? If the entity being accused is big enough, there is
no
> reason to point out the mitigating facts and every reason to exclude
> them.

serebel

2005-03-19, 6:21 pm

rebeccaNO_SPAM@lasermyeye.org wrote:
>
>
> They prefer email or phone.
>
> You know, you have given me a good idea - perhaps I should start a
blog
> to record them, sans personal details.

All of "them" prefer to Email or phone? None post? Oh yeah, start a
"blog" to make them up,er record them.
C'mon, even you can't possibly believe your own answer, let alone
anyone else.

serebel

2005-03-19, 6:21 pm

RT,

There may very well be a problem with Alcon, but this takes hard
evidence, not Rebecca's hollow bashing. There are "perfect" candidates
for all types of surgeries, but things will go wrong. To just bash a
laser manufacturer long and loud doesn't make it so.

SErebel

serebel

2005-03-19, 6:21 pm

And here we have XENO and The "Pimp" with the same diatribe. Can't you
two think of anything else to post? You two must be a barrell of laughs
around the eight track machine.

SErebel

2005-03-19, 6:21 pm

On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 23:51:11 -0500, serebel wrote
(in article <1107751870.989765.186260@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> ):

> RT,
>
> There may very well be a problem with Alcon, but this takes hard evidence,
> not Rebecca's hollow bashing. There are "perfect" candidates for all types of

> surgeries, but things will go wrong. To just bash a laser manufacturer long
> and loud doesn't make it so.
>
> SErebel

And vice versa. Saying it's not so doesn't make it go away either if doctors
are still reporting erratic outcomes. Surely it's worthwhile looking into.

--
~RT

________________________________________________

Hogwasher, Premier News and Mail for OS X
http://www.asar.com/cgi-bin/product.../hogwasher.html
________________________________________________

doctor_my_eye@msn.com

2005-03-19, 6:21 pm

When litigation begins over malpractice, the damages are limited, of
course. to the offending physician and his insurance company. When
litigation begins over a defective medical device that encompasses
thousands of people and procedures, the battle to get into "deep
pockets" begins. Do I think Alcon is a "friend" to optometry and
ophthalmology?
Yes, of course I do. Do I think that the "noble" thing for them to do
is to stop defending their laser? No...I think that would be suicide.
As we discussed before, these cases have a "life of their own" and will
fill the coffers of law firms on both sides. It IS Alcon's job to
defend the work of their scientists who wrote their software and
designed their machine. They built them, sold them and profited from
them...and have every right to defend those actions by fighting
tooth-and-nail for their employees and stockholders.

Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:
> Dr. M,
>
> Since you have had the opportunity to work with Alcon at many
different
> levels in different divisions, is it your opinion that the
> "personality" of Alcon as a corporate citizen is one that would
ignore
> such troubles with their laser if there appeared to be some truth to
> these accusations?

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2005-03-19, 6:21 pm

Thanks Dr. M. You and I don't agree all that often, but we seem to be
on the same page on this.

My experiences with Alcon have generally been good. Very similar to my
experiences with other manufacturers. Last year when we raised the
issue of physicians telling patients that their lasers were FDA
approved to correct higher order aberrations (they are not), Alcon was
cooperative with us as we developed an Advisory Memorandum
(http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/subjects...ustom_lasik.htm) that
was distributed to all refractive surgeons. No, they didn't like the
disruption our advisory may - and did - cause, but they acknowledged
that inaccurate information could not be tolorated.

I don't know if the accusations that the Alcon laser is defective are
accurate, and there are residual concerns that do not seem to be
addressed by Alcon's statements or the mitigating facts that I have
found in my research on this issue. For us the bottom line is if
patients are getting poor outcomes more often with LADARvision than
with other systems, and that does not seem to be the case based upon
all the informatin currently available from both sides and independent
sources.

I do think that Alcon should be given the same consideration as any
other person or entity. Both the accusations and the mitigating facts
need to be presented. I believe what Rebecca is doing is grossly
irresponsible.