|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > July 2005 > My experience with Lasik
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 |
My experience with Lasik
|
|
| Dennis Gustafson 2005-06-27, 10:04 am |
| Just thought I would share my lasik experience.
- Immediately after lasik, I experience a lot more noticable "floaters".
Fearing a detached retina, had additional tests done. It was determined I
just perceived more floaters since my eye dominance changed to my left eye.
Was about 20/30 in both eyes.
- Two weeks after. Left eye was 20/15 and right eye was 20/25. Major
halos/starbusrts around headlights, but still not an issue driving at night.
- 2 month out left eye was 20/15, right about 20/20. Still using eye drops
to eliminate blurriness in the morning or late evenings.
- 6 months, quit using eye drops. still about 20/15r 20/20l. Still have
very pronounced halos around red lights, slight double images in pure
darkness, such as looking at the moon.
- 1 year, floaters finally less noticable as right eye has improved to
20/15 and become dominate again.
- 1 1/2 year. Perfect 20/15 daytime vision. Night vision is almost
perfect, with very small noticeable double images when looking at the moon.
Starbusrts and halos are almost non-existant ( much less than with
glasses ). I totally forget that I even had it done except when star
gazing.
I went from total dependancy (20/600) on glassses/contacts to near "perfect
vision". I swear I can see the rotation of the stitches on a baseball at 80
mph. For me it was a life changing operation. Anyone who asks, I tell them
about how happy I am with the procedure.
Looking back, I would have done it again in a heartbeat....
| |
| Ragnar 2005-06-27, 10:04 am |
| Your results aren't unusual.
When patients get all panicked the days after surgery when their
vision isn't perfect yet is when trouble begins. Some people put
enormous pressure on their surgeons with threats legal and otherwise
into performing premature enhancments. Then they get ahold of a
bottle of steroid drops and figure that if one drop every 12 hours is
good, then 6 drops every 12 hours will be even better. BIG mistake
As you know - patience does have its rewards.
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 05:02:45 GMT, "Dennis Gustafson"
<gustden@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Just thought I would share my lasik experience.
>
>- Immediately after lasik, I experience a lot more noticable "floaters".
>Fearing a detached retina, had additional tests done. It was determined I
>just perceived more floaters since my eye dominance changed to my left eye.
>Was about 20/30 in both eyes.
>
>- Two weeks after. Left eye was 20/15 and right eye was 20/25. Major
>halos/starbusrts around headlights, but still not an issue driving at night.
>
>- 2 month out left eye was 20/15, right about 20/20. Still using eye drops
>to eliminate blurriness in the morning or late evenings.
>
>- 6 months, quit using eye drops. still about 20/15r 20/20l. Still have
>very pronounced halos around red lights, slight double images in pure
>darkness, such as looking at the moon.
>
>- 1 year, floaters finally less noticable as right eye has improved to
>20/15 and become dominate again.
>
>- 1 1/2 year. Perfect 20/15 daytime vision. Night vision is almost
>perfect, with very small noticeable double images when looking at the moon.
>Starbusrts and halos are almost non-existant ( much less than with
>glasses ). I totally forget that I even had it done except when star
>gazing.
>
>I went from total dependancy (20/600) on glassses/contacts to near "perfect
>vision". I swear I can see the rotation of the stitches on a baseball at 80
>mph. For me it was a life changing operation. Anyone who asks, I tell them
>about how happy I am with the procedure.
>
>Looking back, I would have done it again in a heartbeat....
>
>
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-06-27, 5:55 pm |
| I'm sure that your experience will be inspiration for those who are
still having starbursting problems after the normal six-month healing
period.
Congratulations on your excellent outcome.
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.
| |
| Ilana 2005-06-28, 11:08 pm |
| How about people with starbursts at the 5 year mark? By the way, the suction
ring often pulls up floaters
during the LASIK procedure. It's called posterior vitreous detachment. You
did well in the LASIK gamble,
and LASIK is a gamble! You were lucky, Dennis. This doesn't mean you won't
have problems in the future with
dry eye. Oh, and that 20/15 vision? That robbed you of useful close vision
in the future... myopia is the friend of the
middle aged person. You can see things close to you and read with out your
glasses when you're myopic. Since you're
20/15 instead of 20/20 you lost about a year of useful close vision when
compared to your naturally 20/20 peers.
You're gonna HATE presbyopia Dennis. You did pick up some eye damage during
LASIK... everyone does.
When you age it may really manifest itself.
"Glenn - USAEyes.org" <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message
news:i1d0c1h87lbv3tc5aislbo01o7g9b0fhe8@4ax.com...
> I'm sure that your experience will be inspiration for those who are
> still having starbursting problems after the normal six-month healing
> period.
>
> Congratulations on your excellent outcome.
>
> 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.
| |
| serebel 2005-06-28, 11:08 pm |
| Dennis,
according to Ilana The "expert" Your're going to die within a couple of
years from terminal lasik. She is just another off the wall wacko who
has lost all grip on reality.
Best of luck with your improved vision and keep enjoying life every
day.
SErebel
| |
| Ragnar 2005-06-28, 11:08 pm |
| You are completely wrong Ilana. The suction ring has nothing to do
with floaters. It has everything to do with AGE.
"Why does the vitreous detach?
The firm jelly-like substance of the vitreous changes with age. The
central part of the vitreous becomes more liquid and the outer part
(cortex) peels away from the retina. As it comes away from the retina
it can cause the symptoms of posterior vitreous detachment."
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 21:26:41 -0400, "Ilana" <Ilana@aol_nospam.com>
wrote:
>How about people with starbursts at the 5 year mark? By the way, the suction
>ring often pulls up floaters
>during the LASIK procedure. It's called posterior vitreous detachment. You
>did well in the LASIK gamble,
>and LASIK is a gamble! You were lucky, Dennis. This doesn't mean you won't
>have problems in the future with
>dry eye. Oh, and that 20/15 vision? That robbed you of useful close vision
>in the future... myopia is the friend of the
>middle aged person. You can see things close to you and read with out your
>glasses when you're myopic. Since you're
>20/15 instead of 20/20 you lost about a year of useful close vision when
>compared to your naturally 20/20 peers.
>
>You're gonna HATE presbyopia Dennis. You did pick up some eye damage during
>LASIK... everyone does.
>When you age it may really manifest itself.
>
>
>"Glenn - USAEyes.org" <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message
>news:i1d0c1h87lbv3tc5aislbo01o7g9b0fhe8@4ax.com...
>
| |
| Little PussyCat 2005-06-28, 11:08 pm |
|
> mph. For me it was a life changing operation. Anyone who asks, I tell
> them about how happy I am with the procedure.
>
> Looking back, I would have done it again in a heartbeat....
Thats great news!
I am thinking of getting it done, I had a word with my optician who supplies
me with my contact lenses and glasses and she said that lasik has really
improved
So I'll be booking a consultation with Optimax (UK) soon.
Last week my mum had laser eye surgery and it has changed her life,
she had cataracts a few years ago, but one of them clouded over so she had
to have laser eye treatment on it and she was almost blind and now she has
better vision than me!
Its amazing what they can do now,
I also know other people who have had lasik done and they say its amazing,
Enjoy your new vision! :-)
Regards,
Jayne
| |
| Little PussyCat 2005-06-28, 11:08 pm |
| Ragnar wrote:
> You are completely wrong Ilana. The suction ring has nothing to do
> with floaters. It has everything to do with AGE.
I can vouch for that, my dad has just been diagnosed with it, as has my
partner's dad.
Jayne
| |
| Little PussyCat 2005-06-28, 11:08 pm |
|
> dry eye. Oh, and that 20/15 vision? That robbed you of useful close vision
> in the future... myopia is the friend of the
> middle aged person. You can see things close to you and read with out your
> glasses when you're myopic. Since you're
> 20/15 instead of 20/20 you lost about a year of useful close vision when
> compared to your naturally 20/20 peers.
Happens to everyone when they get older anyway, even not so old people...
My brother who is 34, and has always had excellent eyesight (no myopia) has
just discovered he is starting to get long sighted.
I am myopic and I actually read better with my glasses or contact lenses in,
without them close up is a little blurry.
So I am a moderate myopic and probably a little long sighted also.
So myopia certainly is NOT my friend!
>
> You're gonna HATE presbyopia Dennis.
It happens to everyone though,
Jayne
| |
| CatmanX 2005-06-28, 11:08 pm |
| I f you are myopic, you will read better with your glasses off as your
focal point is closer that way. You will find that it is best to
properly understand what your condition is before Lasik as this is
irreversible.
If things are blurry up close without glasses it suggests presbyopia or
hypermetropia, or longsightedness, or very high myopia. Moderate myopia
is in the -2.00 to -3.00 range and will enable comfortable reading at
30-50cm.
Refractive surgery may be an option, but it is not the universal
panacea for all ills.
Please think carefully about the consequences. Dry eye, poor night
vision are among them. Most RS patients are happy with post-operative
vision and cope comfortably with the visual complications (your eyes
and brain adapt to these in most cases).
Depending on your age, you may need to think about correction for
presbyopia as well, as this can be accounted for in the RS process.
dr grant
| |
| CatmanX 2005-06-28, 11:08 pm |
| What your mum had was not Laser surgery per se. It was a YAG laser to
remove debris from the capsule of the lens, called an after cataract.
It is mounted on a slit lamp and burns the cells off the implant lens
and capsule and is in no way related to refractive surgery.
RS uses an excimer laser to burn tissue from the cornea, either after
making a flap in the front, or removing the surface cells. A YAG laser
uses infrared light to burn the tissue away. Once the damages cells are
burnt off, the visual pathway is clear again and regains good vision.
dr grant
| |
| Ragnar 2005-06-29, 11:52 am |
| You nailed that one Pussycat. Floaters happen with old age. Some
people have LASIK then attribute everything else that happens
(presbyopia, floaters, cataracts) to the lasik procedure.
It's not unlike working on someone's computer to help them out. From
that moment on - anything and everything that goes wrong with that
computer is blamed upon what was done to it to fix it.
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 21:00:27 +0100, Little PussyCat
<SPAMSPAM@NOSPAM.com> wrote:
>Ragnar wrote:
>
>
>I can vouch for that, my dad has just been diagnosed with it, as has my
>partner's dad.
>
>Jayne
| |
| Ragnar 2005-06-29, 11:52 am |
| you are one dangerous outlet of misinformation.
I sincerely hope that nobody is paying attention to you.
There is no burning at all in lasik surgery. The cells that are hit
by the cool (non-thermal) laser beam pulse are vaporized, there is no
transmission of heat. The destruction/ablation of the vaporized cells
result in raising the temperature of the cornea about 3 degrees.
Hardly a burn.
You really should be put in jail to cease you from hurting anyone with
your ignorance.
On 28 Jun 2005 14:24:43 -0700, "CatmanX" <grantm@connexus.net.au>
wrote:
>What your mum had was not Laser surgery per se. It was a YAG laser to
>remove debris from the capsule of the lens, called an after cataract.
>It is mounted on a slit lamp and burns the cells off the implant lens
>and capsule and is in no way related to refractive surgery.
>
>RS uses an excimer laser to burn tissue from the cornea, either after
>making a flap in the front, or removing the surface cells. A YAG laser
>uses infrared light to burn the tissue away. Once the damages cells are
>burnt off, the visual pathway is clear again and regains good vision.
>
>dr grant
| |
| Graeme Hewson 2005-06-29, 5:55 pm |
| On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 15:33:46 GMT, ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com (Ragnar) wrote:
> There is no burning at all in lasik surgery. The cells that are hit
> by the cool (non-thermal) laser beam pulse are vaporized, there is no
> transmission of heat. The destruction/ablation of the vaporized cells
> result in raising the temperature of the cornea about 3 degrees.
> Hardly a burn.
My surgeon told me to expect a smell of burning hair, and that's just
what I experienced. What's the difference between vaporisation and
burning, and how is this supposed to help the questioner?
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-06-29, 5:55 pm |
| No heat is the difference.
The laser causes a chemical reaction of the cells that hold the cornea
together. This reaction causes the cells to rapidly dissipate from the
cornea in a cloud resembling an atom bomb, but the cell ablation is
not caused by heat.
Heat buildup does occur because as the cells escape at high velocity
the bang into each other causing heat from friction. With a broadbeam
laser the surface temperature of the cornea raises about 10 degrees F.
A flying spot laser causes less heat buildup because it is ablating a
smaller portion of the cornea at a time and fewer cells are banging
into one another with each pulse.
Although there is not actually burning, the chemical reaction and
expression of the cells from the cornea smell almost exactly like
burnt hair.
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.
| |
| serebel 2005-06-29, 10:54 pm |
| That burning smell is the reaction just above the eye as the cells are
ablated.
SErebel
| |
| Robert Martellaro 2005-07-03, 12:35 pm |
| On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 05:02:45 GMT, "Dennis Gustafson" <gustden@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
>Starbusrts and halos are almost non-existant ( much less than with
>glasses ).
Halos, starbursts, reflections, and reduced contrast will only be present if
the optics are not coated (multi-layer antireflection). Light transmission
coated is 99% with crown glass or cr39 plastic.
Regards,
Robert Martellaro
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Optician/Owner
Roberts Optical
robopt@execpc.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field."
- Niels Bohr
| |
| Dennis Gustafson 2005-07-03, 12:35 pm |
| Ilana,
From my understanding presbyopia is caused by the lens losing the ability to
"flex", not lasik. So even if I am "overcorrected" by .25, eventually I
will need reading glasses. Not a lasik issue, just how people natually age.
Does it really matter if I will need a +2 vs. a +2.25 for close up work 15
yrs down the road? I would rather wear glasses "to read" in my old age vs.
my other option of spending my adult life being totally dependant on
glasses. .
I was very well informed and knew the odd prior to lasik.
I admit Lasik is a gamble, but with the odds were so heavily stacked
heavily in my favor, I would be a moron not having it done. If I was delt a
poker hand with a 99% probability of winning, I would surely bet everything
on it.
Based on my experience, I have no reason to think I made the "wrong"
decision.
"Ilana" <Ilana@aol_nospam.com> wrote in message
news:1119922039.96b6727268551c4ae676e41b8ae260f5@teranews...
> How about people with starbursts at the 5 year mark? By the way, the
suction
> ring often pulls up floaters
> during the LASIK procedure. It's called posterior vitreous detachment. You
> did well in the LASIK gamble,
> and LASIK is a gamble! You were lucky, Dennis. This doesn't mean you won't
> have problems in the future with
> dry eye. Oh, and that 20/15 vision? That robbed you of useful close vision
> in the future... myopia is the friend of the
> middle aged person. You can see things close to you and read with out your
> glasses when you're myopic. Since you're
> 20/15 instead of 20/20 you lost about a year of useful close vision when
> compared to your naturally 20/20 peers.
>
> You're gonna HATE presbyopia Dennis. You did pick up some eye damage
during
> LASIK... everyone does.
> When you age it may really manifest itself.
>
>
> "Glenn - USAEyes.org" <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message
> news:i1d0c1h87lbv3tc5aislbo01o7g9b0fhe8@4ax.com...
>
>
>
| |
| Ragnar 2005-07-03, 12:35 pm |
| There's a huge difference. The cells being ablated are completely
vaporized and release gasses. The energy applied to the cells is
non-thermal, but the ABLATED cells sure get hot, they are
anhillliated. A microwave oven sure doesn't cook by heat, but those
molecules hit by the microwaves sure heat up. The cells which are not
zapped by the laser do not heat up much at all even though the cell
that used to be it's neighbor got ablated.
If the cells that remain heated up in any significant way, it would be
impossible to do the procedure. The only source of heat is the heat
liberated by the ABLATED cells.. the laser is not a source of heat at
all.
When a supposedly professional medical practitioner tries to scare
people by blatantly misleading them into thinking that heat is used to
remove the tiny amount of tissue.. that practitioner needs to be put
in their place.
However, Mr. Grant Mason never ceases to amaze me with his ignorance.
In his defence, he just might not know the difference between ablation
and burning. He makes it sound like someone shoots you in the eye
with a blow torch.
On 29 Jun 2005 18:40:04 GMT, ghewson@cix.co.REVERSE:ku (Graeme Hewson)
wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 15:33:46 GMT, ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com (Ragnar) wrote:
>
>
>My surgeon told me to expect a smell of burning hair, and that's just
>what I experienced. What's the difference between vaporisation and
>burning, and how is this supposed to help the questioner?
| |
| Richard 2005-07-03, 12:35 pm |
| "Dennis Gustafson" <gustden@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:H_4xe.4208$RQ.292@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com:
> "Ilana" <Ilana@aol_nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:1119922039.96b6727268551c4ae676e41b8ae260f5@teranews...
>
> From my understanding presbyopia is caused by the lens losing the
> ability to "flex", not lasik. So even if I am "overcorrected" by .25,
> eventually I will need reading glasses. Not a lasik issue, just how
> people natually age.
>
> Does it really matter if I will need a +2 vs. a +2.25 for close up
> work 15 yrs down the road? I would rather wear glasses "to read" in
> my old age vs. my other option of spending my adult life being totally
> dependant on glasses. .
>
Well, whether or not you need reading glasses as you age will depend on
where your eyes focus. If you are somewhat nearsighted, then it is
entirely possible that you will never need reading glasses, however, you
will need glasses for distance.
With my current prescription, I do not need any corrective lenses at all,
and barring further changes in my prescription, I will never need reading
glasses. I do need corrective lenses for distance however.
--
Richard
| |
| Graeme Hewson 2005-07-03, 12:35 pm |
| I see your hands waving, but I'm afraid I don't understand you. The
cells receive electromagnetic energy, IR or UV, and are destroyed. The
wavelength differs only by a factor of 5 or 10 or so, so what's the
essential difference?
I notice you're more interested in attacking a professional contributor
to this NG than in answering my question: how is this supposed to help
the questioner?
| |
| Ragnar 2005-07-03, 12:35 pm |
| I don't know what your problem is. My point was that the term "Burn"
is wrong. Who are you reffering to as a professional contributor? I
think it was a reply to Mr. Grant Mason, and that man is so
incompetent and ignorant that he should be in jail.
The excimer laser operates at a specific freqency and breaks the bonds
of the molecules it comes in contact with and does not excite nor
affect any molecule it doesn't touch.
Although my expertise with physics has deteriorated over time, I still
know the concepts of LASERs. The laser BEAM is a coherent stream of
photons (light) which travel in a straight line without dispersing.
In this way, a laser beams are used in many ways - such as to bounce a
beam off a mirror on the moon back to earth. When you point a
flashlight at a wall, the light goes off in all directions,
incoherently. A laser beam is directed at one specific point and
doesn't disperse. When the excimer laser hits a molecule on the
cornea, them chemical bonds in THAT molecule - and not the one next to
it - are broken. By breaking those bonds, a tiny amount of heat is
released from the molecule that is being removed/ablated.
I suspect that some malcontents are just playing dumb to be annoying
and misleading. But there may be some people who honestly don't
understand the difference between what a laser does and "burning"
Here is a good example of the difference:
Consider a head full of hair.
Using an eximer laser, it takes 200 pulses of the laser to cut
through a single hair! That hair would be severed off at a point
without damaging the remaining strand of hair nor any nearby hairs.
Using any heat source - a soldering iron for example - to burn the
hair off would result in BURNING the hair, causing the hair to drop
off, and damage much of the hair strand and damage many other hairs
near the hair actually touched with the heat source.
The use of lies and misleading facts to support the rants and raves of
certain malcontents must not be tolerated. The problem the
malcontents have is that if they stick to the facts, they can't scare
anybody. By using the term "burn" or another favorite "dry eye" to
scare people is a dead giveaway that the poster of the message is
trying to scare somebody.
On 01 Jul 2005 23:11:38 GMT, ghewson@cix.co.REVERSE:ku (Graeme Hewson)
wrote:
>I see your hands waving, but I'm afraid I don't understand you. The
>cells receive electromagnetic energy, IR or UV, and are destroyed. The
>wavelength differs only by a factor of 5 or 10 or so, so what's the
>essential difference?
>
>I notice you're more interested in attacking a professional contributor
>to this NG than in answering my question: how is this supposed to help
>the questioner?
| |
| Graeme Hewson 2005-07-03, 12:35 pm |
| On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 12:52:22 GMT, ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com (Ragnar) wrote:
> The use of lies and misleading facts to support the rants and raves of
> certain malcontents must not be tolerated.
Ah yes, your mission.
| |
| djken@optusnet.com.au 2005-07-03, 12:35 pm |
| I may be wrong about this, but isn't Grant an Australian and therefore,
how would you have any idea of his capabilities? His clients and
practice would all be in Australia and as far as I know, none of them
post here. He certainly does not come across to me as a "crackpot" or
"quack". In fact he seems quite reasonable.
Regards,
Linda
| |
| Ragnar 2005-07-03, 12:35 pm |
| You haven't been reading his posts then. Nor my responses.
Without re-posting them, they basically show a pattern of posting
false information and making the same mistakes over and over and over
and over again even when everything is explained to him in minute
detail.
If you think he is reasonable, I would suggest that you either haven't
read much of his posts or that you have a soft spot in your head.
On 3 Jul 2005 00:30:14 -0700, djken@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>I may be wrong about this, but isn't Grant an Australian and therefore,
>how would you have any idea of his capabilities? His clients and
>practice would all be in Australia and as far as I know, none of them
>post here. He certainly does not come across to me as a "crackpot" or
>"quack". In fact he seems quite reasonable.
>Regards,
>Linda
| |
| CatmanX 2005-07-03, 12:35 pm |
| Actually, Linda is quite correct. I am very reasonable. What I can't
stand is bullies who choose to shout everyone else down, even when they
have nothing to say and nothing to add.
20 years as an optometrist would suggest that my competence is not in
question, however as an unemployed computer repair man, yours is.
I will happily put my competency up against yours any day Clifford.
dr grant
| |
| djken@optusnet.com.au 2005-07-03, 12:35 pm |
| Hi Grant,
I did a google search because I am also Australian. Your practice is
about 10 minutes from where I live. Spooky! Do you see many post Lasik
people? It is still very unusual in this country for people to have
Lasik done. People are always intrigued when they find out that I have
had Lasik.
Regards,
Linda
| |
| Fernando 2005-07-03, 10:53 pm |
| Graeme, that buring stench in the LASIK surgery room is your tissue being
burned, and the burned tissue of others who had their corneas cut and burned
before you. Don't be fooled - a 'cool' laser does not 'gently sculpt' your
cornea. Your tissue gets fried. Ragnar is a cretin.
"Graeme Hewson" <ghewson@cix.co.REVERSE:ku> wrote in message
news:memo.20050702184303.2639B@cix.compulink.co.uk...
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 12:52:22 GMT, ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com (Ragnar) wrote:
>
>
> Ah yes, your mission.
| |
| Fernando 2005-07-03, 10:53 pm |
| Ragnar, you're such a zero that you make Grant look like Einstein. No, more
like GOD.
"Ragnar" <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ct8fc19o5f4rkk3d7uhu24ns63edb56tm9@4ax.com...
> You haven't been reading his posts then. Nor my responses.
> Without re-posting them, they basically show a pattern of posting
> false information and making the same mistakes over and over and over
> and over again even when everything is explained to him in minute
> detail.
> If you think he is reasonable, I would suggest that you either haven't
> read much of his posts or that you have a soft spot in your head.
>
>
> On 3 Jul 2005 00:30:14 -0700, djken@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>
>
| |
| Ragnar 2005-07-04, 8:59 am |
| I urge you to use Mr. Mason as your optometrist since you think he's
so wonderful and only 10 minutes away.
On 3 Jul 2005 03:02:30 -0700, djken@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>Hi Grant,
>I did a google search because I am also Australian. Your practice is
>about 10 minutes from where I live. Spooky! Do you see many post Lasik
>people? It is still very unusual in this country for people to have
>Lasik done. People are always intrigued when they find out that I have
>had Lasik.
>Regards,
>Linda
| |
| Ragnar 2005-07-04, 8:59 am |
| Apparently Linda missed some of your recent examples of your
incompetence. I have them somewhere. It's a festive day in the U.S.
today (4th of July). Too busy to play with you today.
On 3 Jul 2005 02:19:10 -0700, "CatmanX" <grantm@connexus.net.au>
wrote:
>Actually, Linda is quite correct. I am very reasonable. What I can't
>stand is bullies who choose to shout everyone else down, even when they
>have nothing to say and nothing to add.
>
>20 years as an optometrist would suggest that my competence is not in
>question, however as an unemployed computer repair man, yours is.
>
>I will happily put my competency up against yours any day Clifford.
>
>dr grant
| |
| Ragnar 2005-07-04, 8:59 am |
| At least one of us is an idiot Graeme. I leave it to the readers to
decide which of us is the idiot.
Apparently you missed my exhausive explanation of the laser a few days
ago.
On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 20:26:08 -0400, "Fernando"
<Fernando@aol_nospam.com> wrote:
>Graeme, that buring stench in the LASIK surgery room is your tissue being
>burned, and the burned tissue of others who had their corneas cut and burned
>before you. Don't be fooled - a 'cool' laser does not 'gently sculpt' your
>cornea. Your tissue gets fried. Ragnar is a cretin.
>
>
>"Graeme Hewson" <ghewson@cix.co.REVERSE:ku> wrote in message
>news:memo.20050702184303.2639B@cix.compulink.co.uk...
>
| |
| Denise 2005-07-04, 11:52 am |
| Ragnar and SERebel are the idiots here. Neither are qualified to give an
exhaustive explanation of anything. Particularly not matters pertaining to
LASIK or vision because they don't read or understand the medical
literature.
"Ragnar" <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:i8cic1t03r939tlftugc33eud1iac3fum4@4ax.com...
> At least one of us is an idiot Graeme. I leave it to the readers to
> decide which of us is the idiot.
> Apparently you missed my exhausive explanation of the laser a few days
> ago.
>
>
> On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 20:26:08 -0400, "Fernando"
> <Fernando@aol_nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
| |
| djken@optusnet.com.au 2005-07-04, 6:01 pm |
| I have not been to an optometrist since having Lasik. The onlt time I
used to visit an optometrist was to get my eyes tested for my contact
lenses or glasses. I no longer have to worry about that! On top of
that, I think it would be a bit spooky to use someone who I only know
via a NG. No offence Grant, you sound like a nice guy!
Regards,
Linda
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-07-05, 12:08 pm |
| As I explained previously in this thread, the cornea is not "burned"
by heat during LASIK or any procedure with an excimer laser. The cells
are released at a high rate of speed, causing friction that raises the
surface temperature of the cornea about 10 degrees F or less.
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.
| |
| CatmanX 2005-07-05, 12:08 pm |
| Actually I am a great guy Linda. Feel free to drop in sometime and we
can talk about stuff like what a wanker Cliff is.
In answer to your previous question, I see quite a few Lasik patients,
particularly with problems, but as the doctors and lasers get better I
see fewer and fewer problems (hooray).
Anyway, you should still get your eyes checked every 2 years.
Cheers,
grant
| |
| Ragnar 2005-07-05, 12:08 pm |
| One minor addition to your explanation is that ONLY the ablated cells
experience that internal friction. The cell next to the ablated cell
is unaffected.
Here's an analogy... think of the cornea as a carton of eggs. Each
egg represents one cell. If one was to use HEAT to obliterate one egg
in the carton, that one egg/cell could not be destroyed without
damaging/cooking the other eggs in the carton. However, using a laser
to obliterate that one egg/cell would be like hitting that egg - and
no other egg - with a hammer, effectively destroying it without
afftecting the other eggs/cells in the carton.
The 3 to 10 degree F temperature increase on the surface of the cornea
is trivial.
Here is something to consider.. paper burns at 451 degrees fahrenheit.
Does anyone really think that a temperature of perhaps 110 degrees is
going to burn anything?
On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 00:26:33 GMT, Glenn - USAEyes.org
<glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:
>As I explained previously in this thread, the cornea is not "burned"
>by heat during LASIK or any procedure with an excimer laser. The cells
>are released at a high rate of speed, causing friction that raises the
>surface temperature of the cornea about 10 degrees F or less.
>
>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 2005-07-05, 12:08 pm |
| I agree with Grant for a change here.. and I must commend him for
signing off as Grant, which is his first name and appropriate instead
of that other inappropriate sign off
Go visit Grant, Linda.
And get a load of this below "as he doctors and lasers get better, I
see fewer and fewer problems".
You should maintain this tone in your posts Grant.
On 5 Jul 2005 01:30:47 -0700, "CatmanX" <grantm@connexus.net.au>
wrote:
>Actually I am a great guy Linda. Feel free to drop in sometime and we
>can talk about stuff like what a wanker Cliff is.
>
>In answer to your previous question, I see quite a few Lasik patients,
>particularly with problems, but as the doctors and lasers get better I
>see fewer and fewer problems (hooray).
>
>Anyway, you should still get your eyes checked every 2 years.
>
>Cheers,
>
>grant
| |
| CatmanX 2005-07-05, 5:55 pm |
| My posts are always in "that" tone, Cliff. As lasers improve,
complications reduce, but there are still problems and inherent flaws
in the process. Why should I not stand up and point these out? If I and
others like me did not put pressure on the RS industry, there would be
little progression and we would still be in the dark ages.
Your problem is that you see every criticism of the process as
damnation of the process. From some posters that may be, but I at least
acknowledge RS is here to stay and that getting it done right is more
important than just getting it done.
dr grant
| |
| ycdbsoya 2005-07-05, 5:55 pm |
| Vibration of adjacent cells causes disruption of nucleus and cell death
in those adjacent cells. You really are beyond a moron. You really
don't know shit from Shinola.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-07-06, 8:56 am |
| Two posts in a row from you that are acceptable.. keep it up.
On 5 Jul 2005 14:14:27 -0700, "CatmanX" <grantm@connexus.net.au>
wrote:
>My posts are always in "that" tone, Cliff. As lasers improve,
>complications reduce, but there are still problems and inherent flaws
>in the process. Why should I not stand up and point these out? If I and
>others like me did not put pressure on the RS industry, there would be
>little progression and we would still be in the dark ages.
>
>Your problem is that you see every criticism of the process as
>damnation of the process. From some posters that may be, but I at least
>acknowledge RS is here to stay and that getting it done right is more
>important than just getting it done.
>
>dr grant
|
| |
|
|