Lasik Eyes Surgery - The Cornea is Not a Piece of Plastic - 10 Commonsense Reasons NOT to Have LASIK

Author

The Cornea is Not a Piece of Plastic - 10 Commonsense Reasons NOT to Have LASIK

Informer

2005-05-18, 11:46 am

Credit to Ariel at LasikInfoCenter.com for this!

The Cornea is not a Piece of Plastic. No matter how precise the laser may
be, individual healing responses can alter the outcome. The numbers plugged
into the laser for your surgery will be taken from averages of outcomes
(called a nomogram) and are not calculated solely on the basis of your
measurements. If the surgery gets you within a half diopter or so of
20/20, it's labeled a success and most surgeons will not do an enhancement
because they cannot guarantee a more precise result.

Ten Common Sense Reasons Why You Should

NOT Have Lasik

After years of dealing with the hassle of spectacles and contact lenses, you've
decided to reward yourself by having Lasik. You've read the glowing reports
in the media about the wonders of this "state of the art" procedure and your
ophthalmologist has just pronounced you "a perfect candidate."

It is at this time, more than at any other time in your life, that you must
pause, stand back from the excitement of the moment, and reflect deeply on
what you are about to do. Lasik will permanently alter the optics and
physiology of your eyes. Most likely things will go well. But there is a
significant chance, much greater than many ophthalmologists realize or will
publicly admit, that your eyes will be irreversibly damaged. The results
could be devastating.

When considering elective surgery one must ask if the benefits truly
outweigh the risks involved. You've heard a lot about the benefits, no
doubt from the surgeon who stands to gain financially by operating on your
eyes. But you owe it to yourself to take a few minutes to read the rest of
this document in order to become better informed about the risks of Lasik.
Once you understand these risks, you may conclude that the prudent course of
action is to avoid the Lasik fad until the procedure has fully matured,
withstood the test of time, and been proven safe. After all, we're talking
about your eyes.

1. The True degree of Risk is Unclear and is Being Downplayed.

Before surgery, patients are typically told that the risk of complications
from Lasik is 1%, and even lower in the hands of an experienced surgeon
(such as the one trying to sell you the procedure). For starters, one must
realize that the risk being referred to is for each eye, so the combined
risk that permanent damage will occur to at least one eye is, by these
figures, actually 2%. Doesn't sound so good anymore? Read on.

At the 1997 Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology meeting in
Fort Lauderdale, Florida, researchers reported that up to 21% of patients
who undergo laser correction complain of night-vision problems stemming from
reduced contrast sensitivity, glare, and halos. [1]

According to another study, at one year postoperatively 12% of Lasik
patients complained of visual disturbances at night. The figure for PRK
patients was, by comparison, "only" 6%. [2]

During the process of obtaining Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Preliminary Market Approval (PMA) for its LADARVision Excimer Laser System,
Alcon Corporation admitted that 22.8% of Lasik patients complained of light
sensitivity post-operatively, 7.1% now suffered from headaches, 31.9% had
glare symptoms, and 32% now experienced night driving difficulties. [3] The
FDA nevertheless approved the LADARVision laser for commercial use, [4] once
again giving more weight to the interests of industry than to the public's
welfare. This occurred despite the fact that 12.7% of LADARVision patients
stated that they experienced "worse" or "significantly worse" quality of
vision, as reported in the PMA. [5]

A study presented in the Review of Optometry [6] summarized surgical (as
opposed to optical) complication rates following Lasik as follows:

Interoperative Flap Complications - 2.7%

Postoperative Flap Complications - 4.0%

Epithelial Ingrowth (Farah) - 14.7%

Epithelial Ingrowth (Wilson) - 4.3%

Epithelial Defects - 5.0%

Interface Debris - 6.8%

Flap Wrinkles - 5.9%

These complications often produce vision-distorting irregular astigmatism.
Unlike regular astigmatism, which is correctable with glasses, irregular
astigmatism cannot be corrected with glasses. Rigid Gas Permeable (RGP)
contact lenses offer some hope to those suffering from Lasik-Induced
Irregular Astigmatism (LIIA) because they provide a smooth surface that
masks corneal irregularities by permitting pooling of tears beneath the
lens. However, due to the flattening of the cornea following Lasik, it is
nearly impossible to find RGP lenses that will stay centered over the pupil
and that will not rub against the interface between treated and untreated
areas of the cornea. The result is that RGP lenses are extremely
uncomfortable for the post-refractive and therefore do not offer a viable
solution to irregular astigmatism. New laser techniques involving eye
tracking are being developed to treat irregular astigmatism, [7] but they
are still in the experimental stages, are yielding mixed results, and may
never be precise enough to correct LIIA.

Many ophthalmologists remain in willful ignorance of Lasik's true risks,
often preferring to avoid patients with post-Lasik complications because it
is much less profitable to treat such a patient than to operate on a fresh
candidate. These doctors therefore never gain an accurate awareness of the
extent of damage that is being done by Lasik. Their ignorance is compounded
by their unfamiliarity with organizations such as surgicaleyes.org or
lasikcourt.com, which are dedicated to providing emotional and informational
support to thousands of people suffering from refractive surgery
complications. [8]

2. Lasik Technology is in its Infancy.

The refractive surgical community depends financially on the average
individual's tendency to get swept up by fads. This natural human tendency
provides refractive surgeons and medical device manufacturers with large
numbers of patients on whom to refine their surgical techniques and devices.

At present, for example, there is no consensus on what kind of excimer laser
provides optimal results. Nidek's single beam laser follows a very
different approach to ablating corneal tissue from that of Visx's broadbeam
laser, yet both are touted as being "state of the art." Many surgeons cut
the Lasik flap from side to side with the Chiron microkeratome, while other
surgeons pronounce themselves experts in using the Hansatome microkeratome,
which cuts a supposedly superior up-down" flap. [9]

The field of refractive surgery is still so new that many ophthalmologists
develop and market their own surgical instruments to perform various
procedures, such as cutting, lifting, or irrigating flaps. Perhaps some of
their enthusiasm for Lasik stems from the goal of "creating rapid profits by
promulgating sales of surgical equipment and adopting new surgical
techniques," as one eminent refractive surgeon has speculated. [10]

Marketers recognize a type of consumer known as the "early adopter," who
enjoys buying the latest products and technology. Refractive surgeons are
also keenly aware of this, and most medical texts about refractive surgery
contain one or more chapters on how to boost profits by targeting such
consumers. The discussion of marketing strategies in medical texts is
remarkable in and of itself, and speaks volumes about the commercial nature
of this field of "medicine."

There is no harm in being an early adopter when one is dealing with a video
game or laptop computer. But does this approach make sense with an
irreversible surgical procedure on one's eyes? Dr. George Waring,
Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Refractive Surgery, answers this question
best when he writes that ".we proceed with active teaching of hundreds or
thousands of ophthalmologists to use a technique that we are simultaneously
figuring out how to do -- including the identification of complications and
statistical outcomes. Is it not safer for patients and more rational for
the profession to proceed in a graduated manner, refining the techniques and
improving the results on smaller numbers of patients (or in the laboratory),
and saving our mass education for the time when we have worked the bugs out
of the technique and have acquired reasonably quantitative descriptions of
safety and efficacy?" [11]

Other leading refractive surgeons concur that the Lasik procedure has not
yet been perfected. One group writes that "As the technology and techniques
improve, we should develop a better understanding of the importance of
laser-tissue interactions, corneal wound healing, and the role of
pharmacologic agents in modulating refractive outcomes. These advances
should allow PRK and LASIK to become more predictable with fewer
complications." [12]

Do you want your eyes to be the ones to help these doctors learn how to
perform Lasik more safely and successfully?

3. Lasik Induces Optical Aberrations that are Poorly Understood by
Ophthalmologists.

Refractive surgery tries to eliminate spherical and cylindrical defocus,
the most important optical aberrations. However, this approach ignores the
fact that the eye has significant higher-order aberrations. According to
Dr. Raymond Applegate of the Department of Ophthalmology of the University
of Texas Health Science Center, these naturally occurring higher-order
aberrations, combined with large increases in the eye's higher-order
aberrations induced by refractive surgery, can decrease visual performance
despite the elimination of spherocylindrical errors. Surgically-induced
higher-order aberrations have received less attention than the correction of
defocus errors despite their importance to optimal visual performance. [13]

Moreover, the normal cornea is relatively trouble-free whereas the
post-refractive cornea frequently has a more aberrated optical performance.
It is often unstable and its optical performance deteriorates at night or in
patients with larger-than-average pupils. Contact lenses and spectacles do
not permanently alter the physiologic optics of the eye. Refractive surgery
does. According to Dr. Leo Maguire of the Mayo Clinic, "When one alters
irreversibly the most trouble-free component of the human visual system, one
runs the risk of compounding the visual aberration caused by components of
the visual system that characteristically show dysfunction with age (the
lens and macula)." [14] Dr. Maguire worries about how many refractive
patients who can compensate for their aberrated cornea will be able to do so
when the lens and macula develop age-related changes. How much sooner will
they require cataract surgery or visual aids for macular degeneration? [15]

Another reason why the eye's optics are degraded by Lasik is that excimer
lasers were designed by engineers who assumed that the cornea is spherical
rather than prolate. [16] According to Dr. Jack Holladay, McNeese Professor
of Ophthalmology at the university of Texas Medical School, these engineers
further assumed that their job was to reshape a steep sphere into a flat
sphere, rather than to reshape a steep prolate into a flatter prolate. As a
result, excimer lasers reshape prolate corneas into oblate ones, a shape
that is optically worse because now peripheral rays are bent more
powerfully, causing more pronounced spherical aberrations when the pupil
dilates. This problem to some extent affects every patient who undergoes an
excimer laser procedure. [17]

A final optical ramification of Lasik that is poorly understood by most
ophthalmologists is that following Lasik the eyes must focus and converge
entirely unaided. However, after years of adaptation to the prismatic
effect of myopia-correcting glasses, many eyes will have difficulty working
together. This problem of visual fusion can be compounded if either eye
experiences even a slight decrease in vision due to a post-Lasik
complication. If the eyes are unable to adapt after Lasik, the
post-refractive patient will have difficulty reading and will experience
constant eye strain.

Dr. Holladay concludes by writing that "We are actually ruining the optics
of the eye when we perform Lasik. That's fine when the pupil is small, but
as it gets larger, such as in nighttime conditions, this becomes a problem."
[18]

4. Lasik Reduces Contrast Sensitivity.

Most people will never know what contrast sensitivity is unless they lose it
as the result of Lasik. An example of diminished contrast sensitivity is
that someone who is walking towards you in a situation where he is lit from
behind appears as a dark silhouette. Pre-Lasik his facial features would
have been easily identifiable. Seeing a white rabbit against the snow also
becomes more difficult. Loss of contrast sensitivity is permanent and to
varying degrees affects everybody who undergoes Lasik.

A recent study performed for the London Centre for Refractive Surgery
following up on patients two to seven years after refractive surgery
determined that 58% failed a contrast sensitivity test for night driving.
[19] These results have been supported by another study at Germany's
Tübingen University, where more than 70% of post-refractives failed a night
vision test -- a requirement in Germany for receiving a driver's license.
[20] The U.K. Transportation Research Laboratory has concluded that due to
loss of contrast sensitivity, at night 80% of post-refractives can't see a
traffic sign at 55 meters, and 40% still can't see the sign at 15 meters.
[21] The Canadian Medical Association has added laser eye surgery to a list
of risk factors for unsafe driving, after finding a decrease of night vision
in between 30 and 60% of laser eye patients. [22]

Why does this happen? One hypothesis is that some of the laser's energy
goes beneath the targeted ablation to the corneal stroma and disturbs the
fibrils. [23] However, there are other hypotheses and no clear answers.

Perhaps you are wondering why this side effect of Lasik has gone largely
unnoticed in the United States. The reason is that, although contrast
sensitivity tests are easy to administer both pre- and post-operatively,
they consume more time than most ophthalmologists are willing to spend with
their patients. If refractive surgeons were to take the time to perform all
the recommended diagnostic tests, they would be spending several hours with
each patient and the procedure would quickly become uneconomical for them.
Therefore, they generally only spend about one or two hours giving their
patients a stripped-down pre-operative evaluation. Issues such as the
effect of Lasik on contrast sensitivity get lost in the rush to put more
patients through the Lasik mill. [24]

5. Lasik Reduces the Cornea's Structural Stability.

The cornea has a natural tendency to become thinner with age. [25] Combine
this with the surgical removal of corneal tissue through Lasik, and there
can potentially be serious problems. [26] Recent studies have indicated
that people who undergo Lasik are at greater risk of developing Iatrogenic
Keratectasia (Ectasia) due to corneal thinning. [27] Ectasia is the
weakening of the cornea's structural stability, which causes the cornea to
bulge forward, resulting in distorted vision, return of myopia, fluctuating
vision, and even more corneal thinning. In the worst cases of ectasia, the
only remedy is a full-scale corneal transplant. Even patients with low
degrees of myopia can suffer from Lasik-Induced Ectasia (LIE). [28]

The long-term weakening of the cornea has been well documented in other
cases of corneal refractive surgery, including radial keratotomy. Although
the mechanism of weakening is different in incisional surgery, it may be
even more profound in excisional surgery such as Lasik. [29] Furthermore,
the flap that is created in Lasik, though resting on the corneal bed
underneath, does not weld to that corneal bed for several years, further
reducing the cornea's tensile strength.

Weakening of the cornea following Lasik is poorly understood because no
statistically valid scientific studies have been performed. According to
one renowned refractive surgeon, "We have failed to ask some fundamental
questions about the stability of refraction of the human eye." [30]

6. Lasik Often Causes Photophobia.

Photophobia is the painful sensitivity to light that often results from
Lasik. Though the exact causes of post-Lasik photophobia are unknown, some
surgeons hypothesize that light scatter and glare resulting from post-Lasik
corneal surface irregularities are the culprits. Others believe that
low-grade inflammation produced by the Lasik procedure is the true cause of
the problem.

Whatever the cause of photophobia following Lasik, the result is that
sunglasses become a constant necessity whenever one is outdoors. It is a
grim paradox that while people undergo Lasik in order to reduce their
dependency on glasses, now many will have increased dependency on
sunglasses.

7. Myopia Will Eventually Be Your Friend.

Myopia reduces and can even eliminate the need for reading glasses, which
compensate for the lens's greater rigidity as we age. This rigidity reduces
the lens's ability to accommodate in order to focus on near objects. Thus
myopia eventually becomes your friend. In cases of mild myopia, to read you
simply remove your glasses or at worst wear bifocals, which are lighter than
normal glasses because the reading lens has a lighter prescription than the
lens used for distance vision. In cases of more severe myopia, the image
minification effect of glasses makes it more comfortable for the eye to see
close-up objects. Thus people with high degrees of myopia may never even
need bifocals due to the image minification produced by their glasses.

Refractive surgery to eliminate myopia improves distance vision at the
expense of near vision. Eliminate the need for glasses by having Lasik at
the age of, say, 30, and within little more than a decade you will start
having to deal with the inconvenience of carrying reading glasses with you
at all times in order to do any close-up work such as read, use the
computer, even see your wristwatch.

8. Lasik Increases the Risk of Cataracts

Lasik increases the risk of cataracts in two ways.

First, steroid medications such as Tobradex, Alrex, Pred Forte, and FML, the
standard treatments for several post-Lasik complications, have been proven
to induce posterior subcapsular cataracts if taken for prolonged periods.
[31] Though prolonged use of steroids is usually not necessary following
Lasik, there are several complications (e.g., corneal abrasion, infection,
haze) that require extended treatment using steroid drops.

Second, the anti-ultraviolet coating that is standard with most eyeglasses
provides a constant barrier against the sun's cataract-inducing ultraviolet
rays. Eliminate this protective barrier through Lasik and your increased
exposure to everyday sunlight will slowly but cumulatively increase your
risk for developing cataracts later in life.

9. Lasik Causes Drier Eyes.

Post-Lasik Dry Eye (PLDE) is quite common, and its treatment is one of the
most difficult problems facing refractive surgeons. [32] For the patient,
it is an uncomfortable and often painful condition that persists
indefinitely. According to Dr. Paul M. Karpecki, OD, Clinical Director of
Cornea and Refractive Surgery for Hunkeler Eye Centers, "Not all patients
are affected, but a very high percentage are." [33]

The reason post-Lasik dry eye is so difficult to deal with is that the Lasik
procedure disrupts so many facets of the eye's tear production mechanism.

First, insertion of a speculum in order to expose the eye in preparation for
surgery disturbs proper eyelid function, creating a medical condition known
as logophthalmos. The speculum stretches the eyelids substantially and this
stretching can damage the levator complex of the upper lid. [34] This
condition, which can be permanent, can reduce the blink rate or cause
eyelids to open partially during sleep, resulting in greater tear
evaporation.

Second, placement of the suction ring at the limbus in order to stabilize
the eye prior to creating the flap disrupts the production of goblet cells.
[35] Goblet cells are necessary in order to maintain a stable tear film.
[36]

Third, the process of cutting the Lasik flap damages many of the nerves that
signal the lacrimal glands to produce tears. [37] By one estimate, nearly
70% of corneal nerves are severed during flap creation. [38] Severing of
these nerves renders the ocular surface hypesthetic, [39] a problem also
known as Lasik-Induced Neurotrophic Epitheliopathy (LINE) or
"de-enervation." [40]

Fourth, ablating the cornea with the laser further destroys corneal nerves.
The depth of the corneal ablation affects the extent of LINE. According to
one study, corneal sensitivity does not recover to the preoperative level
even six months after Lasik. [41]

Fifth, the laser alters the corneal curvature, making it difficult to
produce and maintain a continuous tear film. [42]

Sixth, because after surgery there is a temporary gap between the corneal
flap and the bed, the transfer of cells and other materials may be impeded.
Such diffusion barriers affect the recovery of nerve cells and corneal
tissues. [43]

The Lasik patient will typically experience dry eyes for at least two months
after surgery. Eye drops must constantly be applied, and the individual
will often wake up in the middle of the night with severely dry, scratchy
eyes that need to be lubricated again. These eye drops must be
preservative-free and are extremely expensive.

PLDE sufferers may have to use expensive eye drops indefinitely, and may
even need to have punctum plugs inserted into their eyes' drainage ducts in
order to reduce the outflow of the few precious tears they have left. [44]
In some cases, punctum plugs can cause eye infections, and the only
long-term solution to dry eyes becomes permanent cauterization of the tear
ducts.

It should be noted that PLDE, although uncomfortable in and of itself, can
also lead to reduced visual acuity. The eye's tear film reduces
micro-irregularities that naturally occur on the epithelial surface. If
this tear film is disrupted, the result is that these normal
micro-irregularities are no longer masked by the smooth surface created by
the tear film. [45]

10. Lasik's Long-Term Risks are Unknown

Ophthalmologists themselves admit that the long-term risks of Lasik are
unknown. Peruse ophthalmological literature and you will quickly see how
much is being learned about the long-term optical and physiological
consequences of Lasik. [46] Most of it isn't positive.

One concern is that with the removal of corneal tissue through Lasik, an
individual will not have sufficient corneal thickness left to permit laser
ablation for corneal diseases, should these arise later in life. Laser
therapies such as Photo-Therapeutic Keratectomy (PTK), which have been
developed to resolve ocular problems such as Basement Membrane Dystrophy,
can become impossible to implement if prior Lasik has removed too much
corneal tissue. [47]

Another concern is that corneal reshaping through Lasik makes it more
difficult for an ophthalmologist to assess the presence of glaucoma.
Tonometry measurements, which are taken to determine if a patient has
glaucoma, are less accurate when applied on a post-refractive eye due to
changes in the cornea's rigidity. [48] One can only wonder how many cases
of vision-threatening glaucoma will go undiagnosed among post-refractives in
the years to come.

Yet another concern is that the impact from an expanding car air bag can
cause severe damage to a cornea already weakened by refractive surgery. [49]
Corneal ruptures, which require full-scale corneal transplants, are a
well-established phenomenon in auto accidents involving drivers who have
undergone a prior form of refractive surgery known as Radial Keratotomy
(RK).

Conclusion

Each of these ten points should be enough to give pause to anyone
considering Lasik. Taken as a whole, they raise serious concerns about the
wisdom of undergoing this relatively new procedure. These concerns have
been raised by some ophthalmologists but have been largely disregarded by
most refractive surgeons and the excimer laser industry, which seem more
interested in maximizing profits from the Lasik fad rather than looking out
for the long-term health of their patients. All too often, well-intentioned
refractive surgeons are simply unaware of many of the problems associated
with Lasik discussed in this article.

Eyeglasses have been giving people good eyesight for several
centuries. Contact lenses have been widely used for three decades and, when
cleaned and used properly, have proven themselves to be safe. [50] Lasik
has been performed widely for less than five years. Does it make sense to
risk your eyes on such a new procedure?

Common Lasik Complications

Glare - A phenomenon in which, after light has bounced off an object and
into the eye, it is reflected again in the eye, producing an optical
aberration. Consider a sheet of paper being illuminated by a lamp. To a
normal eye it will be sharp and clear. For the Lasik patient with this side
effect, the sheet of paper will now have a thin ring of white fuzziness
around the edges, perhaps extending for an inch or two. Now take this
disturbing visual effect from that single sheet of paper and expand it by
the several hundred objects in a typical room, and you are looking through a
thin white cloud. Many ophthalmologists never inquire about their patients'
post-operative glare, and if the patient should mention it, the
ophthalmologist will give calming reassurances that it will eventually
subside. Instead they focus their diagnostic efforts on simplistic eye
chart tests and applaud their patients on how well they can read these
charts. They ignore visual complications and instead measure a successful
outcome as being able to read the eye chart at the 20/20 level, regardless
of the fact that the light bouncing off the eye chart creates a degraded
image.

Example of Post-Lasik Daytime Glare.

Haloes - Glare-related visual aberrations causing a fuzzy, cloudy light
surrounding moderately lit objects at night. A red stoplight, for example,
will be surrounded by a large red hazy light. Even more disconcerting,
haloes fluctuate in size a the pupils naturally expand and contract ever so
slightly.

Ragnar

2005-05-18, 11:46 am

Actually, that entirely misleading work of obfuscation was plagiarized
by LasikInfoCenter from the old SurgicalEyes site. It is so absurd
that even SE pulled that list 2 years before they went under. At one
time, it was SE's primary document of deception.

On Fri, 13 May 2005 23:21:05 -0400, "Informer"
<Informer@Yahoo_nospam.com> wrote:

>Credit to Ariel at LasikInfoCenter.com for this!

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2005-05-18, 11:46 am

I believe that Ariel Berschadsky, wrote this tome when he was a
frequent participant at SurgicalEyes. It is not surprising it found
its way to his website.

You may recall that Berschadsky is the New York attorney who trolls
for malpractice patients with his website, although he has attempted
to hide his ownership of the website. Potential malpractice clients
would not know that they are being referred to the owner of the
website

Berschadsky was also found to have over 100 news articles copied and
published on his website, apparently without the permission of the
owners of the copyrighted material. In fact, Berschadsky even
published a letter from a copyright owner on his website and flatly
refused to remove the material he had taken inappropriately.

Some would see this as a violation of the New York Bar's ethics code,
not to mention simply illegal..

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.

Informer

2005-05-18, 11:46 am

It's a well written piece, regardless of its source. Please point out the
part that you feel is not substantiated by research and I will provide the
research to back it up.
No deception in the 10 commonsense reasons piece at all!

"Ragnar" <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d8kb815ujcs8g5oev3s37e8f77nuh3t5cr@4ax.com...
> Actually, that entirely misleading work of obfuscation was plagiarized
> by LasikInfoCenter from the old SurgicalEyes site. It is so absurd
> that even SE pulled that list 2 years before they went under. At one
> time, it was SE's primary document of deception.
>
> On Fri, 13 May 2005 23:21:05 -0400, "Informer"
> <Informer@Yahoo_nospam.com> wrote:
>
>

Ragnar

2005-05-18, 11:46 am

I forgot about that Bershadsky fellow. Yes.. he is the whacko
responsible for the early attempts at amulance chasing with RS.
He's probably given up on that futile endeavor by now. Ironically,
the biggest losers in the attempts to cash-in are the people that
think they can make big money doing it. I can think of one looney in
Tampa that spent years trying every which way to extort money from all
sides of every issue, and wound up with nothing but debts and everyone
turning their backs on him.

.. On Sat, 14 May 2005 16:09:45 GMT, Glenn - USAEyes.org
<glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:

>I believe that Ariel Berschadsky, wrote this tome when he was a
>frequent participant at SurgicalEyes. It is not surprising it found
>its way to his website.
>
>You may recall that Berschadsky is the New York attorney who trolls
>for malpractice patients with his website, although he has attempted
>to hide his ownership of the website. Potential malpractice clients
>would not know that they are being referred to the owner of the
>website
>
>Berschadsky was also found to have over 100 news articles copied and
>published on his website, apparently without the permission of the
>owners of the copyrighted material. In fact, Berschadsky even
>published a letter from a copyright owner on his website and flatly
>refused to remove the material he had taken inappropriately.
>
>Some would see this as a violation of the New York Bar's ethics code,
>not to mention simply illegal..
>
>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, 11:46 am

If by well written piece you meant to say it's a cleverly composed
work of deception, then I agree with you.

On Sat, 14 May 2005 12:54:06 -0400, "Informer"
<Informer@Yahoo_nospam.com> wrote:

>It's a well written piece, regardless of its source. Please point out the
>part that you feel is not substantiated by research and I will provide the
>research to back it up.
>No deception in the 10 commonsense reasons piece at all!
>
>
>"Ragnar" <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:d8kb815ujcs8g5oev3s37e8f77nuh3t5cr@4ax.com...
>

Debbie

2005-05-18, 11:46 am

The only person out trolling for anything in the refractive surgery field is
YOU Glenn. This link shows Ariel claims authorship at LasikInfoCenter
(below). Some people make money by helping patients, some people (who would
never have LASIK themselves) PIMP LASIK to an innocent public.

http://www.lasikinfocenter.net/Webp...s%20Webpage.htm

"Glenn - USAEyes.org" <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message
news:vc8c811mhcqsic077ii83vhffjk5ri6jgj@4ax.com...
>I believe that Ariel Berschadsky, wrote this tome when he was a
> frequent participant at SurgicalEyes. It is not surprising it found
> its way to his website.
>
> You may recall that Berschadsky is the New York attorney who trolls
> for malpractice patients with his website, although he has attempted
> to hide his ownership of the website. Potential malpractice clients
> would not know that they are being referred to the owner of the
> website
>
> Berschadsky was also found to have over 100 news articles copied and
> published on his website, apparently without the permission of the
> owners of the copyrighted material. In fact, Berschadsky even
> published a letter from a copyright owner on his website and flatly
> refused to remove the material he had taken inappropriately.
>
> Some would see this as a violation of the New York Bar's ethics code,
> not to mention simply illegal..
>
> 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.

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2005-05-18, 11:46 am

I have recently respond to why I have not had refractive surgery (poor
candidate) and do not think it necessary to repeat myself. I also
have recently responded to the accusation that I sell LASIK, which I
do not.

If substantiated information indicates that an individual may be
appropriate for refractive surgery, then it is till substantiated
information. And exactly the same is true if that information
indicates someone should not have surgery.

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.