|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > May 2005 > Ophthonix/WF Glasses
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Ophthonix/WF Glasses
|
|
| Simpledog 2005-05-18, 11:45 am |
| I got them.
They work. Not sure how well, but I'm seeing better now than I have since
my surgery.
I can see 20/20 in each eye, but they will take getting used to.
Night distortion cut down by about 50%.
Left eye is still not as clear as the right, but, this is as good as it's
been for awhile.
I recommend taking a chance with the Ophthonix lens.
See you in September.
Saw the stuff about Kathy Griffin. Too bad. I thought Maloney was tops.
A MESSAGE FROM KATHY
First of all, Thanks so much for all of your lovely and kind emails
regarding my oh so nasty eye problem. I really appreciate it.
I'm having my corrective surgery on May 24 so keep your fingers crossed.
Hopefully, I won't have another recurrence
and this whole thing will be over with!
I do want to respond to one question that I have
been getting asked in a lot of your emails.
I didn't develop this condition until after my third LASIK
procedure on my right eye. My eye doctor at that time was
Dr. Robert Maloney (Maloney Vision Institute and Extreme Makeover).
Thanks so much everyone and I'll see you soon, I hope!
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-05-18, 11:45 am |
| Simpledog.
I'm delighted to hear of your positive results with wavefront glasses.
This is a whole new possibility for people with night vision problems.
Frank, I hope you are reading.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
"Consider and Choose With Confidence"
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| Simpledog 2005-05-18, 11:45 am |
| Well it IS a mixed result, but they do work better than normal glasses.
Especially at night. If you have night problems, look into these lenses.
"Glenn - USAEyes.org" <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message
news:6g9881t08l9j3clg37ns2qnk4ge5k6fnfb@4ax.com...
> Simpledog.
>
> I'm delighted to hear of your positive results with wavefront glasses.
> This is a whole new possibility for people with night vision problems.
>
> Frank, I hope you are reading.
>
> Glenn Hagele
> Executive Director
> USAEyes.org
>
> "Consider and Choose With Confidence"
>
> Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
>
> http://www.USAEyes.org
> http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
>
> I am not a doctor.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-05-18, 11:45 am |
| How much were the glasses and examination (with and without frames)
How are they different from normal glasses?
The night vision difference could be due to a coating on the lens.
On Fri, 13 May 2005 05:38:02 GMT, "Simpledog" <cburnett1@san.rr.com>
wrote:
>Well it IS a mixed result, but they do work better than normal glasses.
>
>Especially at night. If you have night problems, look into these lenses.
>
>
>"Glenn - USAEyes.org" <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message
>news:6g9881t08l9j3clg37ns2qnk4ge5k6fnfb@4ax.com...
>
| |
| Simpledog 2005-05-18, 11:46 am |
| They were free.
Normally they are about 350 for a pair of lenses.
"Ragnar" <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:lmh881h0h4hbnn7gd9aqnh5kth8m9cumj6@4ax.com...
> How much were the glasses and examination (with and without frames)
>
> How are they different from normal glasses?
>
> The night vision difference could be due to a coating on the lens.
>
> On Fri, 13 May 2005 05:38:02 GMT, "Simpledog" <cburnett1@san.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>
| |
| CatmanX 2005-05-18, 11:46 am |
| good stuff simpledog. I am glad your vision has been improved by the
glases.
dr grant
| |
| Ragnar 2005-05-18, 11:46 am |
| At first I though.. "he's glad that somone's vision has improved by
the glasses? Why wouldn't everyone be glad that someone's vision has
improved?"
But then I realized we are talking about Grant Mason (who is not a
doctor). When people have LASIK done, he is thrilled if they have a
problem and hates it when their vision improves. That pretty much
covers the malcontent way of thinking. They love to hear about
anything negative they can dig up about lasik.
On 14 May 2005 17:47:01 -0700, "CatmanX" <grantm@connexus.net.au>
wrote:
>good stuff simpledog. I am glad your vision has been improved by the
>glases.
>
>dr grant
| |
| CatmanX 2005-05-18, 11:46 am |
| blah, blah, blah.........
more words of wisdom from the expert on vision.
can you remind me cliffy; these are the glasses you said would not
work, weren't they?
well anyway, i am happy simpledog is seeing better, even if you aren't.
cheers, dud,
dr grant
| |
| Ragnar 2005-05-18, 11:46 am |
| You don't read so well Mr. Mason.. maybe you need glasses.
Simpledog didn't exactly sound thrilled with those glasses. I think
what he should try is the custom made rigid contacts which should
make a significant improvement.
Apparently the cost of the glasses was not a big concern for
Simpledog, and the glasses were not that expensive. One thing that
really bothers me about glasses is that the examinations and lenses
are relatively cheap, but the frames have outrageous price tags on
them. The markup on the frames is criminal.
On 15 May 2005 03:26:26 -0700, "CatmanX" <grantm@connexus.net.au>
wrote:
>blah, blah, blah.........
>
>more words of wisdom from the expert on vision.
>
>can you remind me cliffy; these are the glasses you said would not
>work, weren't they?
>
>well anyway, i am happy simpledog is seeing better, even if you aren't.
>
>cheers, dud,
>
>dr grant
| |
| CatmanX 2005-05-18, 11:46 am |
| blah, blah, blah..........
The only statement that matters is: "but I'm seeing better now than I
have since
my surgery. "
First you say they won't work, then that I am happy simpledog has
problems, now glasses are expensive, make up your mind cliffy, you are
looking for anything to continue to make yourself look foolish.
By the way, if you think the margins on glasses are criminal, what
about Lasik? Not too many optoms I know drive Mercs and porsches, but
most refractive surgeons do. Sort of says something, doesn't it?
dr grant
| |
| ycdbsoya 2005-05-18, 11:46 am |
| God, you are stupid beyond belief. Every time I view this NG, I think
you've hit a new low. But no, you keep on digging! He isn't thrilled,
true, but there is a huge improvement with his night vision. Hard CL's
don't work for him, but you didn't bother to check that out. Why do you
insist on raining on everyone's parade? People are trying to find
solutions, and all you offer is obfuscatory advice and inflammatory and
undeserved criticism.
You know, you really need to get laid or release your sexual energy
somewhere somehow. I can only hope you'll get hit by a car in a
crosswalk, using Glenn's analogy of risk and LASIK. You must have one
helluva bad personal life to continually spew this kind of shit here,
our little king of the alt-lasik NG. You are one XXXXed-up duck. I
don't think there's anyone here - except serebel (who is a case itself)
- that would disagree with this assessment.
| |
| doctor_my_eye@msn.com 2005-05-18, 11:46 am |
| Put Ragnar in the crosswalk. I'm driving.
Dr. Mason is riding shotgun with a baseball bat just in case his sorry
XXX survives the first hit.
| |
|
| In article <1116266254.500075.8450@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
doctor_my_eye@msn.com wrote:
> Put Ragnar in the crosswalk. I'm driving.
> Dr. Mason is riding shotgun with a baseball bat just in case his sorry
> XXX survives the first hit.
Why can't you and others address the issues intelligently without
resorting to insults and threats of physical abuse?
for example, I recently put forward 2 fairly controversial ideas:
1. LASIK is not a medical procedure, nor is it surgery in the
traditional sense of curing disease or injury. It is a commercial
product performed on consumers, not patients. Therefore, holding up
LASIK to the same standards as "medicine" is not realistic. Rather, it
is more like a technological or mechanical product, like a computer or
car--or spectacles made with wavefront data.
2. LASIK should not be performed on people in the teens or early 20s
since they cannot understand the concept that their prescription will
naturally change over time and the loss of corrective lenses is probably
only temporary at best.
No one has responded to either of those ideas. Perhaps I need to fling
a few insults around to start a conversation?
--
~RT
The truth lies somewhere between Ragnar and LASIKtruth
Two sides of the same coin
| |
| doctor_my_eye@msn.com 2005-05-18, 11:46 am |
| Your points are valid ones. I take the opposite tact to explain the
same dichotomy of medicine vs. salesmanship. I tell the patient that
if I were going to do a surgical procedure that would save his life,
with 95% chance of success...we would all sign up.
But, if I was going to perform a surgical procedure on him that has no
benefit other than allowing him to throw away his eyeglasses for a few
years, but he had a 5% chance of having a miserable result....than
LASIK doesn't sound so good after all.
The number one reason that people contact me, or any other optometrist
about their unhappy refractive surgery result is.....they can't see
near after their surgery. Yes, they read the consent. Yes, they know
they are over forty. BUT, they still believed that their near vision
would be just like it was when they were an uncorrected myope. I have
had women break down in tears over the fact that they have to put on
glasses to put on makeup for the first time in their lives. The "two
minute miracle" took more away from them than they ever expected.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-05-18, 11:46 am |
| I avoid replying to the mentally ill... so here's what I have to say
to you " "
On 16 May 2005 08:47:17 -0700, "ycdbsoya" <the_boydstons@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>God, you are stupid beyond belief. Every time I view this NG, I think
>you've hit a new low. But no, you keep on digging! He isn't thrilled,
>true, but there is a huge improvement with his night vision. Hard CL's
>don't work for him, but you didn't bother to check that out. Why do you
>insist on raining on everyone's parade? People are trying to find
>solutions, and all you offer is obfuscatory advice and inflammatory and
>undeserved criticism.
>
>You know, you really need to get laid or release your sexual energy
>somewhere somehow. I can only hope you'll get hit by a car in a
>crosswalk, using Glenn's analogy of risk and LASIK. You must have one
>helluva bad personal life to continually spew this kind of shit here,
>our little king of the alt-lasik NG. You are one XXXXed-up duck. I
>don't think there's anyone here - except serebel (who is a case itself)
>- that would disagree with this assessment.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-05-18, 11:46 am |
| You could do that... or have Mr. Mason (he's not a doctor) tie me to
some railroad tracks and you could roll your Jabba the Hutt carcass
over me like a steamroller. That would probably be like being sat
on by the Sta-Puft marshmallow man in GhostBusters.
Scary thought for the day... Minarik IS a doctor!
On 16 May 2005 10:57:34 -0700, doctor_my_eye@msn.com wrote:
>Put Ragnar in the crosswalk. I'm driving.
>Dr. Mason is riding shotgun with a baseball bat just in case his sorry
>XXX survives the first hit.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-05-18, 11:46 am |
| You are dreaming if you think you are going to get intelligence out of
Minarik and Mason.
As for your two ideas...
#1 I agree that it's not really surgery, but if people want to call
it surgery - that's fine by me. Other than avoiding unrealistic
marketing, I don't think that idea is very relevant.
#2 I'm not aware of anybody in their teens getting lasik done. Early
20's is the starting range to consider the surgery if the patients
eyes are stable. Even if a teens eyes are stable, they still don't do
LASIK just as a rule based upon age. What I do find is a problem is
when lasik is done on very old people. I know LVI routinely does
lasik on people over 70.
And you are absolutely right in your last comment. Unless you throw a
few insults around, posts tend to get ignored.
On Mon, 16 May 2005 18:15:24 GMT, RT <RTMD24@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <1116266254.500075.8450@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> doctor_my_eye@msn.com wrote:
>
>
>Why can't you and others address the issues intelligently without
>resorting to insults and threats of physical abuse?
>
>for example, I recently put forward 2 fairly controversial ideas:
>
>1. LASIK is not a medical procedure, nor is it surgery in the
>traditional sense of curing disease or injury. It is a commercial
>product performed on consumers, not patients. Therefore, holding up
>LASIK to the same standards as "medicine" is not realistic. Rather, it
>is more like a technological or mechanical product, like a computer or
>car--or spectacles made with wavefront data.
>
>2. LASIK should not be performed on people in the teens or early 20s
>since they cannot understand the concept that their prescription will
>naturally change over time and the loss of corrective lenses is probably
>only temporary at best.
>
>No one has responded to either of those ideas. Perhaps I need to fling
>a few insults around to start a conversation?
| |
| Ragnar 2005-05-18, 11:46 am |
| Good thing that you are forbidden from doing any surgical procedures
Minarik.
RT.. I just thought of a reason why your 1st idea about LASIK not
being surgery is a bad idea. If it wasn't considered surgery, people
like Minarik could perform it and then we would have big problems.
As for the results of lasik, I'm still waiting to hear a better
alternative to vision correction than lasik.
On 16 May 2005 11:32:17 -0700, doctor_my_eye@msn.com wrote:
>Your points are valid ones. I take the opposite tact to explain the
>same dichotomy of medicine vs. salesmanship. I tell the patient that
>if I were going to do a surgical procedure that would save his life,
>with 95% chance of success...we would all sign up.
>But, if I was going to perform a surgical procedure on him that has no
>benefit other than allowing him to throw away his eyeglasses for a few
>years, but he had a 5% chance of having a miserable result....than
>LASIK doesn't sound so good after all.
>
>The number one reason that people contact me, or any other optometrist
>about their unhappy refractive surgery result is.....they can't see
>near after their surgery. Yes, they read the consent. Yes, they know
>they are over forty. BUT, they still believed that their near vision
>would be just like it was when they were an uncorrected myope. I have
>had women break down in tears over the fact that they have to put on
>glasses to put on makeup for the first time in their lives. The "two
>minute miracle" took more away from them than they ever expected.
| |
|
| |
|
|