Lasik Eyes Surgery - MILLIONS HARMED BY LASIK

Author

MILLIONS HARMED BY LASIK

LASIKtruth

2005-05-01, 5:57 pm

New studies show LASIK damage to the eye at 100%.:
Excerpts from full text:

Permanent haze at the flap margin, 100% rate of interface particles, 100%
rate of Bowman's microfolds, 100% permanent interface scar "permanently
altered from normal", 100% epithelial thickening, acutely and chronically
reduced keratocytes, some corneas had "empty spaces" in the interface wound
"filled with foreign material suspicious for plastic particles", necrotic
epithelial cells in the interface, chronically vacuolated keratocytes in the
interface, corneal nerves MIA, and the flap does not fit to the underlying
stroma.

Here's the abstract:

Ophthalmology. 2005 Apr;112(4):634-44.

Ex vivo confocal microscopy of human LASIK corneas with histologic and
ultrastructural correlation.

Dawson DG, Holley GP, Geroski DH, Waring GO 3rd, Grossniklaus HE, Edelhauser
HF.

Department of Ophthalmology, Emory university School of Medicine, Atlanta,
Georgia, USA.

OBJECTIVE: To perform confocal microscopy on postmortem human LASIK corneas
and correlate these findings to histologic and ultrastructure evaluations.
DESIGN: Prospective, consecutive, observational case series. PARTICIPANTS:
Ninety postmortem LASIK corneas (47 patients) were evaluated for
histopathology, of which 22 consecutive corneas (12 patients) were also
evaluated by confocal microscopy. Six normal corneas (3 patients) served as
controls. METHODS: This observational case series involving 22 corneas from
12 patients with postoperative intervals from 1 month to 6.5 years after
LASIK surgery were collected. The corneas were mounted in an artificial
anterior chamber and perfused with balanced salt solution before confocal
microscopy was performed on the center of the cornea. The corneas were then
bisected and processed for light and transmission electron microscopy.
RESULTS: Confocal microscopy, along with histologic and ultrastructural
correlations, demonstrated that the most prevalent alterations in the
centers of LASIK corneas were a slightly thickened epithelium caused by
focal basal epithelial cell hypertrophic modifications, random undulations
in Bowman's layer over the flap surface, and a variably thick hypocellular
primitive stromal interface scar. By using confocal microscopy, the
interface wound was easily identified in 100% of the cases because numerous
brightly reflective interface particles were always present in the
hypocellular primitive stromal scar. These particles were found primarily to
consist of organic cellular constituents, some of which were transient in
nature. CONCLUSION: After LASIK, active stromal wound healing in the central
cornea results in the production of a hypocellular primitive stromal scar,
whereas secondary tissue adjustments seem to cause the Bowman's layer
undulations and the subsequent epithelial cell modifications. Most of the
interface particles revealed by confocal microscopy in the region of the
stromal scar are organic in nature and presumably innocuous to the cornea.

2005-05-01, 5:57 pm

In article <1114868734.eade6e90b06a1b4a0f6f856354c16db8@teranews>,
"LASIKtruth" <LASIKtruth@Yahoo_nospam.com> wrote:

> Most of the
> interface particles revealed by confocal microscopy in the region of the
> stromal scar are organic in nature and presumably innocuous to the cornea.

Phew! Innocuous is good.

How is that "harmed"? change is not always necessarily bad.

--
~RT
The truth lies somewhere between Ragnar and LASIKtruth
Two sides of the same coin

LASIKtruth

2005-05-01, 5:57 pm

Read about the rest of the damage, RT. It says 'most' particles are organic.
NOT ALL, and that the organic particles are presumably, not certainly
innocuous to the cornea. Gosh, we hope all that junk under your flap that
you are 100% SURE TO GET won't hurt you!

Who wants junk under their flaps? All LASIK patients get it! Don't get
LASIK!
"RT" <RTMD24@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:RTMD24-96C3AA.10354130042005@newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <1114868734.eade6e90b06a1b4a0f6f856354c16db8@teranews>,
> "LASIKtruth" <LASIKtruth@Yahoo_nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
> Phew! Innocuous is good.
>
> How is that "harmed"? change is not always necessarily bad.
>
> --
> ~RT
> The truth lies somewhere between Ragnar and LASIKtruth
> Two sides of the same coin

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2005-05-01, 5:57 pm

The whole point of refractive surgery is to change the cornea. Having
LASIK and not having change is actually considered a complication.

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.

2005-05-01, 5:57 pm

In article <1114875272.3d385cb4c8362e2dd518d6bbe4ed41a9@teranews>,
"LASIKtruth" <LASIKtruth@Yahoo_nospam.com> wrote:

> Read about the rest of the damage, RT. It says 'most' particles are organic.
> NOT ALL, and that the organic particles are presumably, not certainly
> innocuous to the cornea. Gosh, we hope all that junk under your flap that
> you are 100% SURE TO GET won't hurt you!
>
> Who wants junk under their flaps? All LASIK patients get it! Don't get
> LASIK!

I'm just not as alarmist as you. The study you posted proved that all
the cadavers examined had particles. It said nothing about how that
effected their quality of life. In fact they had to conclude
"presumably" because their subjects were DEAD! The study says nothing
about it affecting their quality of vision in any adverse way.

People get shot and live long healthy lives with bullets imbedded in
their bodies. I just don't think we should go around yelling the sky is
falling until we can prove that it is. 'Tis better to look on the
bright side of life. Life is too short to worry about something that may
or may not happen. Be happy for what you do have, expend your energies
on celebrating that, not fussing over something that may never come to
pass.

--
~RT
The truth lies somewhere between Ragnar and LASIKtruth
Two sides of the same coin

LASIKtruth

2005-05-01, 5:57 pm

Glenn Hagele, having wrinkles in the cornea, junk under the flap, cell
necrosis, vacuoles, abnormal collagen fibers and permanent loss of corneal
nerves ARE considered complications. LASIK changes corneas in these ways
and it is a PROBLEM. Glen Haglele, you must certainly consider this list of
corneal damage to be LASIK complications. No one would want this LASIK
damage in their own eyes.

Everybody gets a rumpled cornea from LASIK - you know it and you need to
stop pushing this bad surgery to make a buck. It's evil.

"Glenn - USAEyes.org" <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message
news:h9b771ten7dv5fkpg43ehd1972r6p2m9u1@4ax.com...
> The whole point of refractive surgery is to change the cornea. Having
> LASIK and not having change is actually considered a complication.
>
> 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.

LASIKtruth

2005-05-01, 5:57 pm

I work as a volunteer with people who have had tragic LASIK outcomes and
have to learn to cope with a lifetime of ruined vision. I have spoken MANY
times to MANY people in this situation.

The FDA knew about problems with LASIK and ignored them. Just because you
had a good outcome doesn't mean that LASIK is a good surgery and people
aren't being harmed by LASIK every day. People ARE being harmed by LASIK
every day. LASIK has ruined many lives. A phychiatrist at the university of
Michigan had a bad LASIK outcome in 2003, spent a year trying to find a
solution to the problem and then killed himself in 2004 because he could not
live with his level of visual impairment.

LASIK should be banned.

"RT" <RTMD24@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:RTMD24-773166.14351530042005@newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <1114875272.3d385cb4c8362e2dd518d6bbe4ed41a9@teranews>,
> "LASIKtruth" <LASIKtruth@Yahoo_nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
> I'm just not as alarmist as you. The study you posted proved that all
> the cadavers examined had particles. It said nothing about how that
> effected their quality of life. In fact they had to conclude
> "presumably" because their subjects were DEAD! The study says nothing
> about it affecting their quality of vision in any adverse way.
>
> People get shot and live long healthy lives with bullets imbedded in
> their bodies. I just don't think we should go around yelling the sky is
> falling until we can prove that it is. 'Tis better to look on the
> bright side of life. Life is too short to worry about something that may
> or may not happen. Be happy for what you do have, expend your energies
> on celebrating that, not fussing over something that may never come to
> pass.
>
> --
> ~RT
> The truth lies somewhere between Ragnar and LASIKtruth
> Two sides of the same coin

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2005-05-01, 5:57 pm

My posting had no reference whatsoever to the complications you
raised. If you can't be truthful, at least try to stay on target.

There is absolutely no evidence that suggests the statements that
"everybody gets a rumpled cornea from LASIK" and that LASIK is "bad
surgery" are accurate, however there are multitudes of studies and
millions of satisfied patients that indicate otherwise.

Is stated by RT, debris in the cornea is not necessarily an indication
that vision is compromised. Debris becomes imbedded in the cornea
throughout a person's life as a simple consequence of today's
lifestyles. As an example, people who around steel often are not able
to have an MRI due to the amount of metal in their corneas. However,
many have 20/20 vision and had no indication that they had metal in
their eyes.

I think most responsible and reasonable people equate the term
"harmed" with an event that causes an undesirable lifestyle change or
that causes symptomatic degradation of health. For the vast majority
of refractive surgery patients, including LASIK, they are not
"harmed". In fact, in survey after survey these people who you
attempt to classify as harmed are delighted with the result of their
surgery and the positive effects on their lifestyle.

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.

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2005-05-01, 5:57 pm

And now we get the "FDA Conspiracy" story. How predictable.

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.

LASIKtruth

2005-05-01, 5:57 pm

It's more like an FDA failure story, Glenn - failure of the FDA to protect
the public health. Please refrain from resorting to melodrama. The facts are
dramatic enough.

Keep right on pimping LASIK Glenn, you will be on record permanently for
doing so and will look like a schmuck for the rest of your life.

"Glenn - USAEyes.org" <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message
news:mcp7715d1j8crcfr0t8aa6jkmqitbmtekh@4ax.com...
> And now we get the "FDA Conspiracy" story. How predictable.
>
> 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.

2005-05-01, 5:57 pm

In article <1114891111.63dc025d1bdde583f4c4c65ac95451a1@teranews>,
"LASIKtruth" <LASIKtruth@Yahoo_nospam.com> wrote:

[vbcol=seagreen]
>Gosh, we hope all that junk under your flap that you are 100% SURE TO
GET won't hurt you!

Thank you for your concern. We all hope flap debris doesn't hurt you
either although you are completely convinced it will. Has your Doc told
you that you have debris under your flap? What symptoms are you having
directed related to debris?

I have a one person study for you based on my experience. Since having
LASIK I've had several MRIs and an MRA which generates a much stronger
magnetic field for about twice as long than a standard MRI.

I sustained no damage to my eyes in the high fields of magnetism. If I
do have debris in my eye it is of no significance. Otherwise they would
have flown out of my corneas and stuck to the machine.

--
~RT
The truth lies somewhere between Ragnar and LASIKtruth
Two sides of the same coin

Debbie

2005-05-01, 5:57 pm

Well, your debris may have been affected by the magnetic scan if it were
metallic debris. If it were organic debris, then it would not be affected by
a magnetic scan, now would it? Don't assume you're off the hook.

Of course my own doctor would never admit I had debris under my flap, but a
2nd opinion doc drew a nice diagram of the METAL debris in my central visual
axis. This could account of at least part of my visual aberrations but my
surgeon made other mistakes. There are so many problems generated by LASIK
sometimes it's hard to determine which part of your permanent LASIK gash is
giving you the worst trouble.

"RT" <RTMD24@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:RTMD24-ED0948.19083330042005@newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <1114891111.63dc025d1bdde583f4c4c65ac95451a1@teranews>,
> "LASIKtruth" <LASIKtruth@Yahoo_nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
> GET won't hurt you!
>
> Thank you for your concern. We all hope flap debris doesn't hurt you
> either although you are completely convinced it will. Has your Doc told
> you that you have debris under your flap? What symptoms are you having
> directed related to debris?
>
> I have a one person study for you based on my experience. Since having
> LASIK I've had several MRIs and an MRA which generates a much stronger
> magnetic field for about twice as long than a standard MRI.
>
> I sustained no damage to my eyes in the high fields of magnetism. If I
> do have debris in my eye it is of no significance. Otherwise they would
> have flown out of my corneas and stuck to the machine.
>
> --
> ~RT
> The truth lies somewhere between Ragnar and LASIKtruth
> Two sides of the same coin

2005-05-01, 5:57 pm

In article <1114909563.a541598cfd3061fb7afa7403ebb80a4e@teranews>,
Debbie <Debbie@MSN_nospam.com> wrote:

> Well, your debris may have been affected by the magnetic scan if it were
> metallic debris. If it were organic debris, then it would not be affected by
> a magnetic scan, now would it? Don't assume you're off the hook.

You're right, it shows I have no metallic debris. What exactly is
"organic" debris and what possible harm can it cause in the future?

FDAgodmineR

2005-05-01, 5:57 pm

You may have plastic debris, you may have necrotic epithelial cells in your
interface, chronically vacuolated keratocytes...this debris can be
reflective and can affect your optical quality whether you admit it or not.
Is this OK with you that you have this garbage in your eyes permanently?

Do you think this would be OK with most people if they knew about it up
front?

"RT" <RTMD24@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:300420052149402791%RTMD24@NOSPAMyahoo.com...
> In article <1114909563.a541598cfd3061fb7afa7403ebb80a4e@teranews>,
> Debbie <Debbie@MSN_nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
> You're right, it shows I have no metallic debris. What exactly is
> "organic" debris and what possible harm can it cause in the future?

2005-05-01, 5:57 pm

In article <1114912482.fadf28cc08099acf159801ea8c9c345e@teranews>,
"FDAgodmineR" <FDAgodminer@aol_nospam.com> wrote:

> You may have plastic debris, you may have necrotic epithelial cells in your
> interface, chronically vacuolated keratocytes...

can you please define what this means? I understand "plastic"--although
where that would have come from I don't know and I doubt that falls
under "organic." Those sound like really nasty dead and wet things;
please define them for those of us who don't have a degree in
ophthalmology and why this should worry me. All corneal cells are
organic, are they not?

>this debris can be
> reflective and can affect your optical quality whether you admit it or not.

I read the whole Dawson article in The American Journal of
Ophthalmology. It's mostly far too technical for my understanding. Do
you understand it all? Are you an ophthalmologist?

It does conclude that the majority of organic debris is reabsorbed by
the eye after 6 months post-LASIK. What it doesn't seem to conclude is
that this organic debris has any adverse affects on optical quality as
you contend. In fact the study isn't about that at all, but documents
the different ways in which the cornea heals itself.

> Is this OK with you that you have this garbage in your eyes permanently?

How do you know I have "garbage" in my eyes? You start out the message
with I "may" debris and now I definitely "have" garbage? Do you have
documented garbage? Does it bother you? Are you just biding your days
until this maybe garbage might cause some problem?
>
> Do you think this would be OK with most people if they knew about it up
> front?

I'm really trying to understand why you are making such a big deal out
of this if it doesn't produce any adverse affects. So things "can" and
"may" but that doesn't equate to "does" or "will."

I, as much as the next person, do not want to have jeopardized my eyes.
But I want to spend my energies worrying about the certainties. I also
think there has been a lot of vocabulary confusion on this NG lately.

1. debris does not necessarily equal garbage. Dictionary.com
definition: The fragmented remains of dead or damaged cells or tissue.
Our cells are constantly dying. Damage happens when cuts happen. But I
wouldn't call this cell debris garbage. Why do you equate debris with
garbage?
2. pathology doesn't just mean disease, it is also the study of
deviations from the norm. Yes, LASIKed eyes are abnormal--they have
been altered surgically, but that doesn't make them diseased
3. a complication does not equal change or symptom; a complication is an
adverse outcome that may or may not be resolved.

--
~RT
The truth lies somewhere between Ragnar and LASIKtruth
Two sides of the same coin

serebel

2005-05-01, 5:57 pm

FDAgodmineR wrote:
> You may have plastic debris, you may have necrotic epithelial cells
in your
> interface, chronically vacuolated keratocytes...this debris can be
> reflective and can affect your optical quality whether you admit it
or not.
> Is this OK with you that you have this garbage in your eyes
permanently?
>

Funny how millions of people are enjoying their "garbage". I hope you
conspiracy nuts are enjoying your paranoia. If you loons are so smart,
why did you have lasik? Rumpled corneas, what a joke. At my last eye
exam (new doc), he couldn't tell that I had lasik.

SErebel

Ragnar

2005-05-01, 5:57 pm

Your out of your mind.

And that study you posted involved cadavers (dead people). One might
wonder how old those cadavers were and if they had cataract surgery.

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 15:42:35 -0400, "LASIKtruth"
<LASIKtruth@Yahoo_nospam.com> wrote:

>Glenn Hagele, having wrinkles in the cornea, junk under the flap, cell
>necrosis, vacuoles, abnormal collagen fibers and permanent loss of corneal
>nerves ARE considered complications. LASIK changes corneas in these ways
>and it is a PROBLEM. Glen Haglele, you must certainly consider this list of
>corneal damage to be LASIK complications. No one would want this LASIK
>damage in their own eyes.
>
>Everybody gets a rumpled cornea from LASIK - you know it and you need to
>stop pushing this bad surgery to make a buck. It's evil.
>
>
>"Glenn - USAEyes.org" <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message
>news:h9b771ten7dv5fkpg43ehd1972r6p2m9u1@4ax.com...
>

serebel

2005-05-01, 10:56 pm

You would get more straight answere from the cadavers.

SErebel

LASIKtruth

2005-05-07, 10:52 pm

Doctors love to say those words to ignorant people. Believe me, you have
induced aberrations, garbage under your flap and nerve damage. People have
LASIK because they don't receive proper informed consent and don't realize
that damage to the eye is pretty much a sure thing.
"serebel" <serebel@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1114919789.083450.163100@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> FDAgodmineR wrote:
> in your
> or not.
> permanently?
>
> Funny how millions of people are enjoying their "garbage". I hope you
> conspiracy nuts are enjoying your paranoia. If you loons are so smart,
> why did you have lasik? Rumpled corneas, what a joke. At my last eye
> exam (new doc), he couldn't tell that I had lasik.
>
> SErebel
>

serebel

2005-05-07, 10:52 pm

Bull, I got very thorough information and my eyes are not damaged at
all.
I hope the garbage under my flap is recyclable.

SErebel