Lasik Eyes Surgery - When a patient brings flowers....

Author

When a patient brings flowers....

doctor_my_eye@msn.com

2005-05-01, 5:58 pm

Sometimes the optometrist who evaluates you after refractive surgery
doesn't look quite deep enough. Here's another example from
DoctorMyEye.com.

DoctorMyEye.com
THE Place To Go When
Refractive Surgery Goes Wrong!
Dr. Kenneth Minarik, O.D.

Posted: Sun May 01, 2005 3:31 pm
Post subject: When a Patient Walks In Carrying Flowers...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

....its probably going to be a good day. She had RK surgery 13 years
ago, and had distorted and blurry vision that had left her unable to
work.

For those of you who think this thread is going to be about the miracle
of good RGPs...you are wrong on this one. ;)

Eight weeks ago, when I first evaluated her, she had been "doctor
shopping" for about six months to find something to help her see.
What I found is that she had cataracts that exactly matched the shape
of the RK cuts on her corneas. In many cases the RK surgeon pushed hard
enough on the cornea that he started the biochemical process of
creating a traumatic cataract that mimics the shape of the cuts on the
front of the eye.

I referred her to a competent surgeon that was aware of the "issues"
involved in post-refractive surgery implantation. He compensated in his
calculations for her intraocular lenses, and she came back to see me
with 20/25 uncorrected vision.

Sometimes the optometrist "sees" the distorted cornea of a complaining
RK patient or LASIK patient and he fails to "see" the human lens as the
culprit.

So, I ask...how many of YOU post-op RKs with failing eyesight have been
checked for cataracts recently? If not, its time to ask!

You might end up being happy enough to bring flowers to YOUR O.D.!

Ragnar

2005-05-01, 5:58 pm

You know... as much as I don't care for Minarik, it seems as if I
actually gave him MORE credit than he deservers!

This post below is incredible.
The key item below is "the RK surgeon pushed hard enough on the
cornea... creating a traumatic cataract"
It took 13 years for that to develop? And there is no PUSHING when
doing RK. Those blades are so sharp and the incisions so tiny that
there is virtually no pressure applied at all.

And then you have the gall to take credit for "repairing" her vision.
The only thing you did for her is to refer her to a surgeon!!!
Congratulations!!! Send this quack his flowers.

Notice that the age of the patient is not mentioned. I have some news
for Minarik. Elderly people get cataracts regardless of whether they
had previous eye surgery.

RK, which is rarely done anymore except in poor countries without
laser systems, involves radial slits about half a millimeter deep.
These slits are 95 to 98% the depth of the cornea and allow the cornea
to flatten a bit. The slits fill back in with cells.. hopefully not
until after the flattening effect. An incompetent quack - such as
Minarik - would interpret that effect as he did below.

On 1 May 2005 08:37:08 -0700, doctor_my_eye@msn.com wrote:

>Sometimes the optometrist who evaluates you after refractive surgery
>doesn't look quite deep enough. Here's another example from
>DoctorMyEye.com.
>
> DoctorMyEye.com
>THE Place To Go When
>Refractive Surgery Goes Wrong!
>Dr. Kenneth Minarik, O.D.
>
>
> Posted: Sun May 01, 2005 3:31 pm
>Post subject: When a Patient Walks In Carrying Flowers...
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>...its probably going to be a good day. She had RK surgery 13 years
>ago, and had distorted and blurry vision that had left her unable to
>work.
>
>For those of you who think this thread is going to be about the miracle
>of good RGPs...you are wrong on this one. ;)
>
>Eight weeks ago, when I first evaluated her, she had been "doctor
>shopping" for about six months to find something to help her see.
>What I found is that she had cataracts that exactly matched the shape
>of the RK cuts on her corneas. In many cases the RK surgeon pushed hard
>enough on the cornea that he started the biochemical process of
>creating a traumatic cataract that mimics the shape of the cuts on the
>front of the eye.
>
>I referred her to a competent surgeon that was aware of the "issues"
>involved in post-refractive surgery implantation. He compensated in his
>calculations for her intraocular lenses, and she came back to see me
>with 20/25 uncorrected vision.
>
>You might end up being happy enough to bring flowers to YOUR O.D.!

doctor_my_eye@msn.com

2005-05-01, 10:56 pm

Ragnar, it is obvious that you know even less about RK than you know
about LASIK. Have you ever been in an operating room to watch RK? I
stopped after my three hundredth RK. My mentor did eleven thousand RKs
in the six years I worked for him.

So, you idiot...I will debunk the rest of your lies. The way that RK
is was performed is that a series of pachimetry readings of the
thickness of the cornea were taken over a round area. The thickness of
the cornea in the various meridians was charted and then the patient's
age and refractive error were "plugged in" to a series of Mathematical
Tables that were invented by Casebeer to improve the work of Fodorov
that called for too many cuts that were too deep.

To follow Casebeer's Table, the surgeon would have a selection of
six to eight sterile sharp diamond knives. After he had determined how
deep each radial cut was going to be, he would set a "Stop" under a
microscope on the base of the diamond blade that kept him from cutting
too deeply into the globe and causing a possible puncture of Descemet's
membrane and the endothelium. Then, he had to make the radial cuts,
usually one cut with each diamond blade. He had to be sure that the
blade entered the cornea deep enough for the stop to slide across the
epithelium,
but no deeper. The blade was pressed into the cornea deep enough for
him to feel the cornea press back against the stop.

The exact nature of these cataracts after RK is a subject of
controversy. You are right, even in the reasoning of your little
feeble mind, that a "normal" traumatic cataract requires you to be hit
"harder" to form one. But, as you may have read, RK patients have iron
lines in their corneas that form in between thew cuts, almost always
perfectly equidistant between the cuts. The iron lines seem to be part
of an inflammatory process that the cornea goes through as it attempts
to heal itself after the RK. These spoke-shaped cataracts that mimic
the RK cuta also have a tndency to show iron lines in them as well.
This is science that a lot of surgeons don't want to do a lot of
research on, as the iron lines don't block the patient's sight and no
one wants to damage a 15-year-old RK and risk puncturing it in the
interest of science.

So, moron, to make another point clear...this patient is now 38 years
old, and her RK was during her early twenties.
An optometrist OR ophthalmologist can MISS these cataracts because they
literally "hide" behind the RK cuts, and since there wasn't anything in
the literature about them 10 years ago...who would have known?

I know that you are amused by knocking my crdentials, but I'll remind
the casual reader that my degrees from the university of Pittsburgh and
my Doctorate in Optometry from the Illinois college of Optometry,
followed by 25 years of very successful clinical practice, have allowed
me to be able to solve hundreds of problems that other doctors might
have missed. I just haven't found out how to prove to Ragnar that he
is an ignorant idiot who doesn't belong in an intellectual discussion
such as this one. I'm WAY out of his league.

serebel

2005-05-01, 10:56 pm

Minarik,
Who's treating this person for your so called "shock syndrome" ?
Funny how you rail against lasik but were a willing witness to 11,000
RKs. I know, you were just following orders.

SErebel

Ragnar

2005-05-01, 10:56 pm

Now this is interesting... even at the time of RK.. people were
discouraged from having it done unless they were an athlete or
otherwise had some desperate need to be rid of their glasses. Yet
Minarik worked for 6 years with an RK surgeon.

You are so full of it. You got the steps right, but you don't
understand them. It's like on a cooking show where they will have a
chef lead some novice cook step by step and the cook really doesn't
have a clue what they are doing. There is no resistance to those
blades. If there was, it would be impossible to get such a precise
cut. When the blade is placed upon the cornea, it just goes down to a
pre-determined depth like a red hot knife through butter - which is
why stops are used.

And for those unfamiliar with Minarik, his interpretation of
"successful" is how much money he's made. As anybody should know, the
most "successful" people in the world often acheived their success by
means of deception, cutting corners, over-charging, fraud, etc.

And let's not forget the clincher here... the SURGEON fixed the
problem. All Minarik did was refer the patient to the surgeon.. and
he wants a prize for that!

Here's a tip for you Minarik. Just hang a sign on your door with the
names, addresses and phone numbers of other eye doctors in your city.
That way, people would have a chance of getting some professional
eye-care from your "referral".

I don't even think you can convince yourself of your qualifications,
let alone anybody in this forum. I bet that none of the malcontents
in this newsgroup would seek you out for anything.

Why are you even bringing up RK in this newsgroup? RK is not a good
surgery, nobody ever claimed it was. At best, it was offered as an
alternative to glasses or contacts.

At least today you are not calling yourself a medical professional,
since your not in the medical field. Optometry is not a medical
degree. Why he is commenting about medical procedures is a mystery to
me.

And to top it of, he's just plain nuts.

On 1 May 2005 16:26:02 -0700, doctor_my_eye@msn.com wrote:

>Ragnar, it is obvious that you know even less about RK than you know
>about LASIK. Have you ever been in an operating room to watch RK? I
>stopped after my three hundredth RK. My mentor did eleven thousand RKs
>in the six years I worked for him.
>
>So, you idiot...I will debunk the rest of your lies. The way that RK
>is was performed is that a series of pachimetry readings of the
>thickness of the cornea were taken over a round area. The thickness of
>the cornea in the various meridians was charted and then the patient's
>age and refractive error were "plugged in" to a series of Mathematical
>Tables that were invented by Casebeer to improve the work of Fodorov
>that called for too many cuts that were too deep.
>
> To follow Casebeer's Table, the surgeon would have a selection of
>six to eight sterile sharp diamond knives. After he had determined how
>deep each radial cut was going to be, he would set a "Stop" under a
>microscope on the base of the diamond blade that kept him from cutting
>too deeply into the globe and causing a possible puncture of Descemet's
>membrane and the endothelium. Then, he had to make the radial cuts,
>usually one cut with each diamond blade. He had to be sure that the
>blade entered the cornea deep enough for the stop to slide across the
>epithelium,
>but no deeper. The blade was pressed into the cornea deep enough for
>him to feel the cornea press back against the stop.
>
>The exact nature of these cataracts after RK is a subject of
>controversy. You are right, even in the reasoning of your little
>feeble mind, that a "normal" traumatic cataract requires you to be hit
>"harder" to form one. But, as you may have read, RK patients have iron
>lines in their corneas that form in between thew cuts, almost always
>perfectly equidistant between the cuts. The iron lines seem to be part
>of an inflammatory process that the cornea goes through as it attempts
>to heal itself after the RK. These spoke-shaped cataracts that mimic
>the RK cuta also have a tndency to show iron lines in them as well.
>This is science that a lot of surgeons don't want to do a lot of
>research on, as the iron lines don't block the patient's sight and no
>one wants to damage a 15-year-old RK and risk puncturing it in the
>interest of science.
>
>So, moron, to make another point clear...this patient is now 38 years
>old, and her RK was during her early twenties.
>An optometrist OR ophthalmologist can MISS these cataracts because they
>literally "hide" behind the RK cuts, and since there wasn't anything in
>the literature about them 10 years ago...who would have known?
>
>I know that you are amused by knocking my crdentials, but I'll remind
>the casual reader that my degrees from the university of Pittsburgh and
>my Doctorate in Optometry from the Illinois college of Optometry,
>followed by 25 years of very successful clinical practice, have allowed
>me to be able to solve hundreds of problems that other doctors might
>have missed. I just haven't found out how to prove to Ragnar that he
>is an ignorant idiot who doesn't belong in an intellectual discussion
>such as this one. I'm WAY out of his league.

doctor_my_eye@msn.com

2005-05-01, 10:56 pm

By now I hope you put it together...that the RK disasters lead to my
advocacy for refractive surgery victims. The number of RK disasters IS
much higher than LASIK disasters....but there are still thousands of
them.
Using Ragnar's favorite "ten million LASIKs so far" number, with just
2% of these patients being visually disabled, we are talking about TWO
HUNDRED THOUSAND unhappy people!

Ragnar

2005-05-02, 8:55 am

You are one sleazy character Minarik.
I didn't say 10 million so far, I said approaching 10 million.

I didn't say just 2% of those being visually disabled. I'm saying
close to 0% visually disabled. Glenn says 3% have some unresolved
complications 6 months after surgery. The number is less than that
and needs to be revised. After 12 months, that unresolved
complication rate plummets.
Meanwhile, throughout the entire duration of contact lens wear, there
is a 5% complication rate - which INCREASES over time instead of
decreases.

Even taking your idiotic numbers, 2% unhappy with LASIK.. there is 5%
unhappy with contacts, and since all the people wearing contacts could
throw on a pair of glasses, the figure for unhappy glasses people is
certainly well over 5%

-Minarik, I think you can stop posting now. Your credibility is gone,
your not fooling anyone here. I must admit that even I gave you more
credit than you deserve. I'm astonished at how incompetent you are.

RK disasters led to your advocacy... whoo boy. It took you SIX YEARS
of working with that surgeon doing 11,000 RK surgeries to figure that
out?

On 1 May 2005 19:59:41 -0700, doctor_my_eye@msn.com wrote:

>By now I hope you put it together...that the RK disasters lead to my
>advocacy for refractive surgery victims. The number of RK disasters IS
>much higher than LASIK disasters....but there are still thousands of
>them.
>Using Ragnar's favorite "ten million LASIKs so far" number, with just
>2% of these patients being visually disabled, we are talking about TWO
>HUNDRED THOUSAND unhappy people!

doctor_my_eye@msn.com

2005-05-02, 11:51 am

The incidence of infection in contact lens wearers that causes a
permanent vision loss of two lines of acuity or more is one in 170,000
wearers. The number of LASIK patients who lose two lines of best
corrected acuity in at least one eye is just over 2 in one hundred.
So, the comparison between the safety of contact lens wear and the
safety of LASIK blows away the competition.

I personally see about one patient every other year that feel that they
were disabled by their contacts. I average one patient a week that
feels they were disabled in at least one eye by their LASIK.

Using Glenn's numbers about complications is like getting a rooster
head count from a fox. Most of the bad ones have conveniently been
consumed before the numbers come out.

ycdbsoya

2005-05-02, 11:51 am

Doc, I don't know why you even bother to post here. It is clear that
you are reaching a deaf, dumb and blind audience.

It's OK however, because serebel, ragweed, et al use only a few of
their senses anyway. They are just life support systems for alimentary
canals.

doctor_my_eye@msn.com

2005-05-02, 11:51 am

I certainly don't post "for" those morons. I post because the general
public might actually begin to believe their lies and deceptions.
Thanks for the heads up.

Ragnar

2005-05-02, 11:51 am

Your numbers are from the "Twilight Zone"
You keep forgetting that you are delusional and have no grip on
reality.

On 2 May 2005 06:58:30 -0700, doctor_my_eye@msn.com wrote:

>The incidence of infection in contact lens wearers that causes a
>permanent vision loss of two lines of acuity or more is one in 170,000
>wearers. The number of LASIK patients who lose two lines of best
>corrected acuity in at least one eye is just over 2 in one hundred.
>So, the comparison between the safety of contact lens wear and the
>safety of LASIK blows away the competition.
>
>I personally see about one patient every other year that feel that they
>were disabled by their contacts. I average one patient a week that
>feels they were disabled in at least one eye by their LASIK.
>
>Using Glenn's numbers about complications is like getting a rooster
>head count from a fox. Most of the bad ones have conveniently been
>consumed before the numbers come out.

Ragnar

2005-05-02, 11:51 am

Now here's a pair... Minarik and Ycdboya are pals.

Reminds me of that movie Dumb and Dumber.

On 2 May 2005 08:56:45 -0700, doctor_my_eye@msn.com wrote:

>I certainly don't post "for" those morons. I post because the general
>public might actually begin to believe their lies and deceptions.
>Thanks for the heads up.

ycdbsoya

2005-05-02, 5:53 pm

Talking about yourself and your alter ego again, I presume. This, from
an out of shape middle aged single man who cannot get a date and was
beaten up by a girl in grade school. That's the problem...he has
sublimated his rage growing out of his profound sense of failure. Never
has and never will have anything of substance to offer this or any NG.

As I said, Rags is a life support system for an alimentary canal. All
that comes out is ______.

Ragnar wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Now here's a pair... Minarik and Ycdboya are pals.
>
> Reminds me of that movie Dumb and Dumber.
>
>
>
> On 2 May 2005 08:56:45 -0700, doctor_my_eye@msn.com wrote:
>
general[vbcol=seagreen]

Ragnar

2005-05-02, 5:53 pm

whoops.. just figured out who you are ycdboya..

good to know that the number of malcontents is smaller than would seem

btw.. not quite middle aged yet... and in much better shape than
almost anybody my age - not as good as I would like though.

On 2 May 2005 10:27:22 -0700, "ycdbsoya" <the_boydstons@hotmail.com>
wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Talking about yourself and your alter ego again, I presume. This, from
>an out of shape middle aged single man who cannot get a date and was
>beaten up by a girl in grade school. That's the problem...he has
>sublimated his rage growing out of his profound sense of failure. Never
>has and never will have anything of substance to offer this or any NG.
>
>As I said, Rags is a life support system for an alimentary canal. All
>that comes out is ______.
>
>Ragnar wrote:
>general

serebel

2005-05-02, 10:54 pm

ycdbsoya wrote:
> Doc, I don't know why you even bother to post here. It is clear that
> you are reaching a deaf, dumb and blind audience.
>
> It's OK however, because serebel, ragweed, et al use only a few of
> their senses anyway. They are just life support systems for
alimentary
> canals.

One of those senses is vision, thanks to quality lasik that's out there
for all.
Aren't you Frank Boydston one of the SE loonies ? BTW, Minarik is not a
doctor, just a wannabe pop psychologist.

SErebel

serebel

2005-05-02, 10:54 pm

You want to protect the public ? Lose a hundred pounds and don't sit
on anyone.

SErebel

ycdbsoya

2005-05-03, 11:53 am

Dealing with either of you is like stepping in dog $hit on the way to a
business meeting, but that's insulting to dog $hit. Comments you both
make leave me wondering if either of you have reached adulthood.
serebel's weight comment and rag's in general remind me of a 5th grade
mentality. I'm waiting to hear serebel's "fatty, fatty two by four."
What are you, 10 years old?

Neither of you have nothing to offer. Just continue to pull the wings
off flies in this little NG, your little limited world. Hanging out at
the margins, trolls that you are, jumping on the back of anyone posting
anything meaningful. Masters of the alt.lasik NG...how pathetic and
small.

serebel

2005-05-03, 10:56 pm

S'matter there Frankie,

Did you rub your 'roid cream in your eyes again ?

SErebel

CatmanX

2005-05-05, 5:59 pm

How do you define medical professional? One who deals with medicine?
One who can prescribe drugs? Funny, I thought optometrists could do
that, so doesn't that make them medical professionals?

Dr grant

Ragnar

2005-05-05, 10:57 pm

This is a real winner...
Grant Mason - who is NOT a doctor - yet calls himself Dr. Grant is now
deciding that anybody that car write a prescription for eyedrops is a
medical professional.

I got some news for you Mr. Mason... just about anybody can obtain
prescription drugs via the interent with an automated prescription. I
guess a personal computer running a script is also a medial
professional.

On 5 May 2005 14:38:27 -0700, "CatmanX" <grantm@connexus.net.au>
wrote:

>How do you define medical professional? One who deals with medicine?
>One who can prescribe drugs? Funny, I thought optometrists could do
>that, so doesn't that make them medical professionals?
>
>Dr grant

CatmanX

2005-05-06, 9:21 am

No bozo, i mean writing a legitimate script that you can take to a
pharmacy for dispensing. I can do it, Ken can do it, you are not up to
scratch.
It is a pity that you are such a pathetic individual that has to try to
justify his own existance by putting others down, but you should get
your facts straight before you push your foot another few inches
further down your throat.

cheers, and waiting for your next witty addition to the worlds
knowledge base.

dr grant

ycdbsoya

2005-05-06, 12:01 pm

Ragnar wrote:
> This is a real winner...
> Grant Mason - who is NOT a doctor - yet calls himself Dr. Grant is
now
> deciding that anybody that car write a prescription for eyedrops is a
> medical professional.
>
> I got some news for you Mr. Mason... just about anybody can obtain
> prescription drugs via the interent with an automated prescription.
I
> guess a personal computer running a script is also a medial
> professional.
>

Hey Rags:

You can get a scrip for as much phenobarbital as you want. Take them
with alcohol. I'll even clue you in on the LD-50 needed to put you out
of your doubtless misery.

Ragnar

2005-05-06, 5:58 pm

The name isn't bozo.. but then your name is Mr. Mason, not Dr.
Grant... so at least you are consistent.

Writing prescriptions for eyedrops is hardly any major event. You
aren't authorized to write prescriptions for over 99% of the products
that a pharmacy carries. If you did, your license to prescribe
anything at all would be revoked.
Just yesterday in New York they arrested 3 doctors for supplying
medications such as Cialis, Viagra, Celebrex, and Vioxx to the mafia
for drug traffiking. A prescription can only be written for the
treatment required by that patient for the condition they were being
treated for.

I am not capable of putting you down to the level at which you belong.

Even the malcontents will not further lessen their own credibility by
supporting your stream of garbage advice. It's people like you that
create malcontents.

On 6 May 2005 04:55:59 -0700, "CatmanX" <grantm@connexus.net.au>
wrote:

>No bozo, i mean writing a legitimate script that you can take to a
>pharmacy for dispensing. I can do it, Ken can do it, you are not up to
>scratch.
>It is a pity that you are such a pathetic individual that has to try to
>justify his own existance by putting others down, but you should get
>your facts straight before you push your foot another few inches
>further down your throat.
>
>cheers, and waiting for your next witty addition to the worlds
>knowledge base.
>
>dr grant

CatmanX

2005-05-06, 5:58 pm

blah, blah, blah......

boring, boring, boring cliffy.

dr grant