| Ragnar 2005-04-26, 11:49 am |
| Of course you want to ignore semantics. That 9% number is so absurd
that to even consider it as reality shows just how dangerous your
misleading posts are.
On 26 Apr 2005 05:05:53 -0700, "CatmanX" <grantm@connexus.net.au>
wrote:
>Let's not try to get into semantics. The report says 9%, not maybe 9%,
>not 9% of surgeons had seen ectasia. To quote, "The survey respondents
>reported an overall post-LASIK ectasia rate of 9%". Hey, this surprises
>me, but it was a section in a questionaire, not a scientific study.
>Before I went posting it everywhere, I would actually like to see the
>exact wording of the question.
|