| Author |
Standing Room Only at ASCRS' Ectasia Sessions and Workshops
|
|
| gospa68@aol.com 2005-04-25, 10:51 pm |
| The post on a 9% ectasia rate says it all. That is why all sessions and
workshops related to ectasia at this year's ASCRS were standing room
only. The chickens are coming home to roost.
WK
| |
| Ragnar 2005-04-25, 10:51 pm |
| If you read my post of minutes ago.. the ectasia rate of post lasik
patients is actually LOWER than the general population.
On 25 Apr 2005 18:17:42 -0700, gospa68@aol.com wrote:
>The post on a 9% ectasia rate says it all. That is why all sessions and
>workshops related to ectasia at this year's ASCRS were standing room
>only. The chickens are coming home to roost.
>WK
| |
| serebel 2005-04-25, 10:51 pm |
| Wizzer here just jumps on anything to suit his own agenda. otherwise he
doesn't have a clue about anything.
SErebel
| |
|
| In article <1114478262.005918.195150@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
gospa68@aol.com wrote:
> The post on a 9% ectasia rate says it all. That is why all sessions and
> workshops related to ectasia at this year's ASCRS were standing room
> only. The chickens are coming home to roost.
> WK
Can you please give us a report on the workshop findings?
--
~RT
The truth lies somewhere between Ragnar and LASIKtruth
Two sides of the same coin
| |
| CatmanX 2005-04-26, 8:51 am |
| The report was from a survey of doctors. It did not specify how many,
who or state the ecaxt wording of the question, so it can't be taken
too seriously without further support.
dr grant
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-04-26, 11:49 am |
| The fact that you WizKid, who professes to be a doctor, did not bother
to check the accuracy of a report so obviously incorrect and instead
started spouting off in this newsgroup about chickens, shows that you
do not care one jot or tittle about accuracy or truth. You only care
about your own agenda
I attended several courses and symposia regarding ectasia and symposia
that included presentations on ectasia. The only one that was
actually standing room only was an all encompassing symposia about
many diseases of the cornea and similar maladies. Yet again, WizKid,
you are caught misrepresenting the truth to serve your own bias.
As to the 9% ectasia rate you are ranting on about, I contacted Dr.
Leaming who provided this response:
~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Mr. Hagele,
There was no question on the 2004 Survey of US ASCRS members where the
post LASIK ectasia rate could be derived. The only question dealing
with ectasia was "How many cases of post LASIK ectasia have occurred
to date (not just last year) where you were the primary surgeon?"
This has nothing to do with rate but with what percent of surgeon have
even seen a case in the years they have been doing refractive surgery.
There was a typo in the answer section of the question in that there
was no "zero" choice. For the most part the data was not even posted
because of that typo.
An estimate of the percent of ASCRS members who have seen ectasia 9%
over the last 8-9 years LASIK has been around was derived but it is
pretty meaningless since we don't know what the time frame was (1-8)
years and we don't know how many skipped the question because there
was no Zero choice in the responses.
The 9% of members who have seen ectasia must have been misinterpreted
from the poster display as a post LASIK ectasia rate which it is not.
In retrospect nothing should have been said about the question since
the answer choices were flawed.
I hope this clears up the miscommunication. I have sent a copy of
this to David Karcher at ASCRS.
Sincerely,
David Leaming MD
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| gospa68@aol.com 2005-04-26, 5:53 pm |
| It is clear that you did not attend the workshops on ectasia. They were
standing room only too.
Secondly, the data that LASIK TRUTH was not made up. It came right from
Leaming's survey.
Finally, denial is integral to a surgeon's psyche. Time will show that
ectasia is closer (maybe even higher) than the 9% the surgeons
reported.
There is a dance going on with this adverse event as everyone knows
that the truth of this will be harmful to the golden goose.
WK
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-04-26, 5:53 pm |
| ROFL. You are truly amazing, WizKid. When the AUTHOR of the survey
states clearly that the information published and reference in your
post is inaccurate, you completely ignore the TRUTH and carry on with
your "the sky will fall on ectasia someday" idiocy.
I truly hope you are lying about being a doctor. I'd hate for
patients to have someone like you making decisions about their ocular
health.
At least you have moved up from talking about a chicken to talking
about a goose. I guess that can count as progress.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
|
|
|
|