Lasik Eyes Surgery - Kathy Griffin reveals how bad LASIK complications can be!

Author

Kathy Griffin reveals how bad LASIK complications can be!

Ilana

2005-06-28, 11:08 pm

Kathy Griffin really puts Maloney in his place on her website! Go check out
the pictures if you think LASIK is quick and painless. Her eye looks like
she's been in a train wreck.

Here is a link to her site:
http://www.kathygriffin.net/lasik.php

It is so cool that a celebrity is finally speaking out about what nightmare
LASIK eye surgery can be! See Kathy's letter and statement below!

Here's the deal. I've had severe complications from lasik surgery.

My doctor WAS Dr. Robert Maloney of the Maloney Vision Institute in Los
Angeles and "Extreme Makeover".

I'm not saying he deliberately screwed my eye up, but if I were you, I
wouldn't go to him!

I've had FIVE surgeries on my right eye and, let me tell you, the last one
was a XXXXX!

It was a 90 minute surgery, and I had 17 stitches in my eye for three weeks!

Read on for the details, especially if you're considering getting lasik,

or you've had lasik and you're considering getting a "new, improved" version
of lasik.

As of now, I'm not in pain anymore, but my vision in my right eye is
extremely blurry.

It can't be improved with glasses or contacts. Thanks for all your
supportive emails and lasik stories.

I've read every one of them...with my good eye!

XXOO

Kathy G.

The truth about my Lasik

Dr. Robert Maloney has made a number of statements to the press regarding my
condition

Here are the facts:

Dr. Robert Maloney's Statements vs. The Facts

Maloney Statement #1: "Kathy had threatened to go public with her story if
Dr. Maloney didn't pay her $250,000"

Contrary to the allegations of Dr. Robert Maloney, Kathy Griffin never
demanded that Maloney pay her $250,000.00 and never threatened that, if he
refused to pay, she would publicize the damage to her eye resulting from the
surgeries performed by Dr. Maloney.

The facts are as follows:

After four eye surgeries by Dr. Maloney, the last being a failed attempt to
correct the serious damage following from the previous surgeries, Ms.
Griffin consulted legal counsel. Ms. Griffin's attorney gave written notice
to Dr. Maloney of the claims arising out of her eye injury and stated that
if she proceeds to litigation, the amount of her claim, while not presently
determined, would be at least $250,000.00 in general damages (the statutory
limit in California) plus medical expenses and loss of income. No specific
amount was demanded of Dr. Maloney. The attorney's letter concluded by
commenting on the obvious inevitability of media attention for both parties
in the event of a lawsuit.

After Maloney received this letter, he left Kathy a voice mail asking to
meet with Kathy to "settle this thing without getting the lawyers involved."
Kathy agreed to meet with Dr. Maloney at a neutral location. During that
meeting, Dr. Maloney discussed paying Kathy some money and sending her to
Minneapolis to have another surgeon operate on her eye. He also told Kathy
that if the case ever reached court, the resulting media attention would be
good for his business and that Kathy's name would be dragged through the
mud. He mentioned that he would have no choice but to bring up whatever
dirt he could find on Kathy including details of her sex life. Finally,
when Kathy asked why this condition had happened to her, Dr. Maloney gave a
terse two word response, "Bad Luck." After that, Kathy decided against a
financial settlement because she would undoubtedly be asked to sign a
confidentiality agreement. She realized that it would be more useful and
rewarding to alert the public about the risks of laser eye surgery. Kathy
has not filed a lawsuit against Dr. Maloney and she is not planning to. She
is, however, spending tens of thousands of dollars to educate the public
about the side effects of lasik surgery.

Statement #2: "The procedure to cure epithelial cell ingrowth is a painless
10 minute procedure"

Kathy recently underwent a 90 minute operation that left her with 17
stitches in her eyeball. Kathy was put under by an anesthesiologist during
the operation and it was performed in an operating room. Even though the
surgery initially appears to be a success, there is still a great deal of
concern that these cells could return. According to Dr. David Hardten, a
prominent LASIK surgeon, "The recurrence rate can be as high as 60 percent."

Statement #3: "Epithelial cell ingrowth occurs in less than one percent of
LASIK patients"

No study has been cited to support Dr. Maloney's assertion. According to
the September 2001 Review of Ophthalmology, "The clinically SIGNIFICANT,
unwanted growth of corneal epithelial cells in the LASIK interface occurs in
about 1-2 percent of cases." In order to be considered significant, the
ingrowth needs to be blocking vision, causing stromal melt, or progressing
so rapidly that one of these two occurrences is soon to occur. Obviously,
if the rate for severe ingrowth is between one and two percent, the rate for
all ingrowth is higher than 2 percent. Even if it were as low as 2%, that
would mean in a population of 10 million patients, 200,000 people would
suffer with this condition.

Statement #4: "Kathy disregarded Dr. Maloney's advice to get this injury
treated"

Dr. Maloney performed the 3rd LASIK procedure, WaveFront, on Kathy on
6/24/03. This procedure failed to improve Kathy's vision and for the first
time she developed Epithelial Cell Ingrowth. Dr. Maloney performed surgery
#4 on Kathy's right eye on 7/3/03 for the purpose of removing the cell
ingrowth. It wasn't until a checkup a few months later that Dr. Maloney
told Kathy the Epithelial Cells had returned yet again. After four eye
surgeries and countless visits to Dr. Maloney's office, Kathy lost
confidence in Dr. Maloney's abilities and assurances. She began to seek
opinions from other doctors. She saw no reason to keep Dr. Maloney informed
of her visits to those other doctors. It became increasingly apparent that
there are many different views on how to treat this injury in the LASIK
community.

Statement #5: "Kathy approached Dr. Maloney because of her interest in the
Wavefront procedure"

Kathy had never heard the word Wavefront or knew what it was until Maloney's
representatives approached her. In 2003, Kathy invited Entertainment
Tonight to follow her on a humorous journey covering her plastic surgery.
The doctors performing the plastic surgery were represented by a publicist
named Gemma Cunningham. Gemma also handles public relations for Maloney and
she approached Kathy about having Maloney perform a new type of LASIK called
Wavefront on Kathy for the piece. Kathy was hesitant about having a third
procedure performed on her eye but Dr. Maloney assured her that "you can
open the eye up 50 times if you want and it won't matter." Kathy relied on
that advice and agreed to the surgery. She ended up with impaired vision
and substantial pain attendant to the Epithelial Cell Ingrowth. According
to an article in the 4/5/03 edition of The Telegraph, a British newspaper,
"Second operations leave patients more prone to complications."

Other controversies involving Dr. Robert Maloney may be found at
http://users.tns.net/~equity/LASIK_Casualties_LA/

Dr. Maloney currently being sued by Judy Jade Chang in Los Angeles Superior
Court. Details of the Chang lawsuit can be found at
http://www.lasikfraud.com/news/archives/000084.html.

Dr. Maloney is a proponent of a new procedure called JewelEye, a procedure
in which a stone is implanted into the eyeball. An archive of a Wall Street
Journal article on the procedure can be found at
http://www.bookofjoe.com/2004/10/be...medspe_39.html.

serebel

2005-06-28, 11:08 pm

As posted here countless times (I guess Ilana just can't read), Kathy
Griffin is a psycho in pursuit of perfection. She has had multiple
elective surgeries and they finally caught up to her. Stupid is as
stupid does.

SErebel

Ragnar

2005-06-28, 11:08 pm

This is one of the most ridiculous posts that has been posted here in
recent memory.

First, we have established already that Kathy Griffin is nuts and has
no credibility.

Next, her #1 premise on her new attack is that she didn't try to get
$250,000 out of Maloney. Well, I beg to differ:
"Ms. Griffin’s attorney gave written notice to Dr. Maloney of the
claims arising out of her eye injury and stated that if she proceeds
to litigation, the amount of her claim, while not presently
determined, would be at least $250,000.00 in general damages (the
statutory limit in California) plus medical expenses and loss of
income. "

Furthermore, she says her ingrowth surgery was not simple and lasted
90 minutes instead of 10 and requred stitches. Had she gone for the
simple flap lift and treatment of her ingrowth when first noticed, it
would have been easy, 10 minutes, and not required stitches. She
chose to try to milk Maloney for money BEFORE getting that
complication treated. Bad idea.

Lastly, by her own admission, her LASIK surgery went fine. THEN she
decided to go for monovision so she wouldn't need to wear reading
glasses. That was additional surgery (she loves surgery - there is no
surgery that she will pass up. She even had a second liposuction
surgery even though her first liposuction nearly killed her and she
publically declared she would never have liposuction again - and she
was a size 4 to begin with!)

I think Griffin's real problem is that her career is going down the
toilet and she keeps going for more surgery from head-to-toe to try
and make herself "better" so her career will pick up again. She's
history. Her 15 minutes of almost fame are up. Go get a real job
Kathy.

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 20:24:19 -0400, "Ilana" <Ilana@aol_nospam.com>
wrote:

>Kathy Griffin really puts Maloney in his place on her website! Go check out
>the pictures if you think LASIK is quick and painless. Her eye looks like
>she's been in a train wreck.
>
>Here is a link to her site:
>http://www.kathygriffin.net/lasik.php
>
>It is so cool that a celebrity is finally speaking out about what nightmare
>LASIK eye surgery can be! See Kathy's letter and statement below!
>
>
>
>
>
>Here's the deal. I've had severe complications from lasik surgery.
>
>My doctor WAS Dr. Robert Maloney of the Maloney Vision Institute in Los
>Angeles and "Extreme Makeover".
>
>I'm not saying he deliberately screwed my eye up, but if I were you, I
>wouldn't go to him!
>
>I've had FIVE surgeries on my right eye and, let me tell you, the last one
>was a XXXXX!
>
>It was a 90 minute surgery, and I had 17 stitches in my eye for three weeks!
>
>Read on for the details, especially if you're considering getting lasik,
>
>or you've had lasik and you're considering getting a "new, improved" version
>of lasik.
>
>As of now, I'm not in pain anymore, but my vision in my right eye is
>extremely blurry.
>
>It can't be improved with glasses or contacts. Thanks for all your
>supportive emails and lasik stories.
>
>I've read every one of them...with my good eye!
>
>XXOO
>
>Kathy G.
>
>
>
>The truth about my Lasik
>
>
>
>Dr. Robert Maloney has made a number of statements to the press regarding my
>condition
>
>Here are the facts:
>
>Dr. Robert Maloney's Statements vs. The Facts
>
>
>
>Maloney Statement #1: "Kathy had threatened to go public with her story if
>Dr. Maloney didn't pay her $250,000"
>
>
>
>Contrary to the allegations of Dr. Robert Maloney, Kathy Griffin never
>demanded that Maloney pay her $250,000.00 and never threatened that, if he
>refused to pay, she would publicize the damage to her eye resulting from the
>surgeries performed by Dr. Maloney.
>
>
>
>The facts are as follows:
>
>
>
>After four eye surgeries by Dr. Maloney, the last being a failed attempt to
>correct the serious damage following from the previous surgeries, Ms.
>Griffin consulted legal counsel. Ms. Griffin's attorney gave written notice
>to Dr. Maloney of the claims arising out of her eye injury and stated that
>if she proceeds to litigation, the amount of her claim, while not presently
>determined, would be at least $250,000.00 in general damages (the statutory
>limit in California) plus medical expenses and loss of income. No specific
>amount was demanded of Dr. Maloney. The attorney's letter concluded by
>commenting on the obvious inevitability of media attention for both parties
>in the event of a lawsuit.
>
>
>
>After Maloney received this letter, he left Kathy a voice mail asking to
>meet with Kathy to "settle this thing without getting the lawyers involved."
>Kathy agreed to meet with Dr. Maloney at a neutral location. During that
>meeting, Dr. Maloney discussed paying Kathy some money and sending her to
>Minneapolis to have another surgeon operate on her eye. He also told Kathy
>that if the case ever reached court, the resulting media attention would be
>good for his business and that Kathy's name would be dragged through the
>mud. He mentioned that he would have no choice but to bring up whatever
>dirt he could find on Kathy including details of her sex life. Finally,
>when Kathy asked why this condition had happened to her, Dr. Maloney gave a
>terse two word response, "Bad Luck." After that, Kathy decided against a
>financial settlement because she would undoubtedly be asked to sign a
>confidentiality agreement. She realized that it would be more useful and
>rewarding to alert the public about the risks of laser eye surgery. Kathy
>has not filed a lawsuit against Dr. Maloney and she is not planning to. She
>is, however, spending tens of thousands of dollars to educate the public
>about the side effects of lasik surgery.
>
>
>
>Statement #2: "The procedure to cure epithelial cell ingrowth is a painless
>10 minute procedure"
>
>
>
>Kathy recently underwent a 90 minute operation that left her with 17
>stitches in her eyeball. Kathy was put under by an anesthesiologist during
>the operation and it was performed in an operating room. Even though the
>surgery initially appears to be a success, there is still a great deal of
>concern that these cells could return. According to Dr. David Hardten, a
>prominent LASIK surgeon, "The recurrence rate can be as high as 60 percent."
>
>
>
>Statement #3: "Epithelial cell ingrowth occurs in less than one percent of
>LASIK patients"
>
>
>
>No study has been cited to support Dr. Maloney's assertion. According to
>the September 2001 Review of Ophthalmology, "The clinically SIGNIFICANT,
>unwanted growth of corneal epithelial cells in the LASIK interface occurs in
>about 1-2 percent of cases." In order to be considered significant, the
>ingrowth needs to be blocking vision, causing stromal melt, or progressing
>so rapidly that one of these two occurrences is soon to occur. Obviously,
>if the rate for severe ingrowth is between one and two percent, the rate for
>all ingrowth is higher than 2 percent. Even if it were as low as 2%, that
>would mean in a population of 10 million patients, 200,000 people would
>suffer with this condition.
>
>
>
>Statement #4: "Kathy disregarded Dr. Maloney's advice to get this injury
>treated"
>
>
>
>Dr. Maloney performed the 3rd LASIK procedure, WaveFront, on Kathy on
>6/24/03. This procedure failed to improve Kathy's vision and for the first
>time she developed Epithelial Cell Ingrowth. Dr. Maloney performed surgery
>#4 on Kathy's right eye on 7/3/03 for the purpose of removing the cell
>ingrowth. It wasn't until a checkup a few months later that Dr. Maloney
>told Kathy the Epithelial Cells had returned yet again. After four eye
>surgeries and countless visits to Dr. Maloney's office, Kathy lost
>confidence in Dr. Maloney's abilities and assurances. She began to seek
>opinions from other doctors. She saw no reason to keep Dr. Maloney informed
>of her visits to those other doctors. It became increasingly apparent that
>there are many different views on how to treat this injury in the LASIK
>community.
>
>
>
>Statement #5: "Kathy approached Dr. Maloney because of her interest in the
>Wavefront procedure"
>
>
>
>Kathy had never heard the word Wavefront or knew what it was until Maloney's
>representatives approached her. In 2003, Kathy invited Entertainment
>Tonight to follow her on a humorous journey covering her plastic surgery.
>The doctors performing the plastic surgery were represented by a publicist
>named Gemma Cunningham. Gemma also handles public relations for Maloney and
>she approached Kathy about having Maloney perform a new type of LASIK called
>Wavefront on Kathy for the piece. Kathy was hesitant about having a third
>procedure performed on her eye but Dr. Maloney assured her that "you can
>open the eye up 50 times if you want and it won't matter." Kathy relied on
>that advice and agreed to the surgery. She ended up with impaired vision
>and substantial pain attendant to the Epithelial Cell Ingrowth. According
>to an article in the 4/5/03 edition of The Telegraph, a British newspaper,
>"Second operations leave patients more prone to complications."
>
>
>
>Other controversies involving Dr. Robert Maloney may be found at
>http://users.tns.net/~equity/LASIK_Casualties_LA/
>
>
>
>Dr. Maloney currently being sued by Judy Jade Chang in Los Angeles Superior
>Court. Details of the Chang lawsuit can be found at
>http://www.lasikfraud.com/news/archives/000084.html.
>
>
>
>Dr. Maloney is a proponent of a new procedure called JewelEye, a procedure
>in which a stone is implanted into the eyeball. An archive of a Wall Street
>Journal article on the procedure can be found at
>http://www.bookofjoe.com/2004/10/be...medspe_39.html.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>