Lasik Eyes Surgery - A great endorsment for LASIK

Author

A great endorsment for LASIK

Ragnar

2005-07-05, 12:08 pm

"I have not been to an optometrist since having LASIK." I can't
think of a better endorsment of lasik! After lasik, you don't NEED
to go to an eye doctor ever again (until cataract time in your old
age).
Really, you and everyone should STILL go see an eye doctor once a
year. Glaucoma is an ever-present danger which if left untreated,
can render someone blind within DAYS.
In fact, one danger of lasik is that since people no longer HAVE to go
to their eye doctor periodically... they don't!
I am sure that every eyedocto will agree that everyone should have at
least a glaucoma test once a year.

On 4 Jul 2005 14:36:32 -0700, djken@optusnet.com.au wrote:

>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

doctor_my_eye@msn.com

2005-07-05, 5:55 pm

Alright, Ragnar! Good pickup. Also remind people that when you have
your refractive error corrected by LASIK, you still have the same
eyeball that you always had. SO, high myopes still have a high risk of
retinal tears and detachments even when their LASIK went perfectly.
Regular eye exams, especially for high myopes, are very important!

ycdbsoya

2005-07-05, 5:55 pm

Not to break up your post-to-post-to-post self flagellation session,
Raggie, but you just referred to an Optometrist as a doctor. That is
not an endorsement of LASIK.

You are quite, well, stupid. I am hoping a large, aggressive and
dominant homosexual man has his way with you. I see marriage in your
future.

djken@optusnet.com.au

2005-07-06, 8:56 am

Grant may be able to answer this, but I didn't think that eye tests
were required on a regular basis. If someone has never had eye problems
and can see well, why would they routinely visit their optometrist?
Glaucoma is a nasty condition, but usually presents with some symptoms.
In Australia, we do not go to have routine tests for glaucoma unless we
have already presented with the early signs. In fact, I do not know of
anyone who has routine eye testing done, except for those who are
having trouble with their vision. Prior to having Lasik, I saw an
optometrist every year to update my contact lens/glasses prescription.
As I am seeing well and have no pain/problems of any kind, I cannot see
the point in seeing the optometrist. If I DID have problems, I would
make an appointment immediately. I have the same attitude towards
visiting the doctor - I go if I need to.
Regards,
Linda

Ragnar

2005-07-06, 8:56 am

I agree completely... and I have a suggestion for you in your future
posts. I don't recall having many issues with your short and to the
point posts that give facts and suggestions. Where you create
problems is when you get into lonnnng messages which ramble on with
your opinions. I personally know someone that does something
similar. He impresses people to begin with, but over time, he starts
telling people about his belief in black helicopters, how Henry
Kissinger and the Bildeburger Group control the world, UFOs, etc.
Once he starts telling people about his beliefs, he loses all
credibility. Another habit he has is to tell people about things in
his own life - and if they seem interested he keeps "enhancing" his
anecdotes with unbelievable claims. Here is a short made-up example
of what I mean. He might start off saying "I was in Peru" fine..
"all the people there eat pizza with a knife and fork" hmm.. cute
"they have military police all over the streets carrying uzis"
really? "if you photograph a governement building they will shoot
you!" uh-huh.... "they have aliens they captured from a crashed ufo
in those buildings" oh brother "the pope is an alien and also the
antichrist" Wheee. Quite often, saying less is better than
saying more.

On 5 Jul 2005 10:23:10 -0700, "doctor_my_eye@msn.com"
<doctor_my_eye@msn.com> wrote:

>Alright, Ragnar! Good pickup. Also remind people that when you have
>your refractive error corrected by LASIK, you still have the same
>eyeball that you always had. SO, high myopes still have a high risk of
>retinal tears and detachments even when their LASIK went perfectly.
>Regular eye exams, especially for high myopes, are very important!

Ragnar

2005-07-06, 8:56 am

This one deserves two replies. people are susceptible to problems
such as retinal detachments, especially as they age. Myopes are far
more susceptible to those problems due to the stretched and mis-shapen
back of their eye. Quite a few malcontents seem to have the idea that
LASIK cures their eyes of myopia and all other eye conditions. When
anything at all happens to their eyes (cataracts, presbyopia, etc)
that lasik was at fault when it had nothing to do with it positvely or
negatively.
It is entirely true that people who have LASIK done tend to stop going
to their eye doctor. That is a mistake. That is not unlike someone
who does not go to the dentist until they HAVE to. By not going to
the dentist every so often, instead of having a cavity filled, one may
wind up with a root canal or dentures. Here's one short quick story
about that. A man I used to chat with on the internet was a severe
diabetic. He had problems with his teeth. He went in for 4 root
canals at once, and didn't tell the surgeon that he was a diabetic.
The trauma of all that surgery and lack of preventive measures
resulted in an abcess. Again he didn't get it treated fast enough.
He died a few weeks after his root canal surgery.
One more short example: all men will eventually have problems with
their prostate gland. Quite a few men do not go to their doctor to be
examined for that. By letting that condition worsen without being
diagnosed or treated, one is likey to have problems such as difficulty
in urination, incontinence, impotence, and prostate cancer.

Bottom line is... continue to see your eye doctor after LASIK even
though you can see fine. On the other extreme, there are people who
continue to go in for pap test even after a hystrectomy. The ladies
will know how silly that is. As I recall, 15% of hysterectomy
patients continue to have pap tests done.

On 5 Jul 2005 10:23:10 -0700, "doctor_my_eye@msn.com"
<doctor_my_eye@msn.com> wrote:

>Alright, Ragnar! Good pickup. Also remind people that when you have
>your refractive error corrected by LASIK, you still have the same
>eyeball that you always had. SO, high myopes still have a high risk of
>retinal tears and detachments even when their LASIK went perfectly.
>Regular eye exams, especially for high myopes, are very important!

Ragnar

2005-07-06, 8:56 am

Your thinking that people who can see well should not have their eyes
checked just confirms how wrong you are about eye care in general.
Since you directed this question to Grant, I am not going to answer it
again. I bet that even he will come up with the correct answer on
this one.

On 6 Jul 2005 03:08:14 -0700, djken@optusnet.com.au wrote:

>Grant may be able to answer this, but I didn't think that eye tests
>were required on a regular basis. If someone has never had eye problems
>and can see well, why would they routinely visit their optometrist?
>Glaucoma is a nasty condition, but usually presents with some symptoms.
>In Australia, we do not go to have routine tests for glaucoma unless we
>have already presented with the early signs. In fact, I do not know of
>anyone who has routine eye testing done, except for those who are
>having trouble with their vision. Prior to having Lasik, I saw an
>optometrist every year to update my contact lens/glasses prescription.
>As I am seeing well and have no pain/problems of any kind, I cannot see
>the point in seeing the optometrist. If I DID have problems, I would
>make an appointment immediately. I have the same attitude towards
>visiting the doctor - I go if I need to.
>Regards,
>Linda

2005-07-06, 8:56 am

In article <55hnc1ptva327fo13aqoli3q0076q4u8bi@4ax.com>,
Ragnar <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I have the same attitude towards

Linda: preventative care is key. waiting for symptoms is a risk. Of
course, you should go to a doctor if you are sick and have symptoms--but
sometimes that is too late--like cancer, diabetes, heart murmurs,
cavities, torn retinas, etc. Doctors can see things long before you
have manifest symptoms by doing blood tests, pap smears etc.

It's a dangerous practice not to have regular check ups for your general
health, your eyes, with your gynecologist, and your dentist.

--
~RT

djken@optusnet.com.au

2005-07-06, 6:06 pm

RT wrote:
> In article <55hnc1ptva327fo13aqoli3q0076q4u8bi@4ax.com>,
> Ragnar <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Linda: preventative care is key. waiting for symptoms is a risk. Of
> course, you should go to a doctor if you are sick and have symptoms--but
> sometimes that is too late--like cancer, diabetes, heart murmurs,
> cavities, torn retinas, etc. Doctors can see things long before you
> have manifest symptoms by doing blood tests, pap smears etc.
>
> It's a dangerous practice not to have regular check ups for your general
> health, your eyes, with your gynecologist, and your dentist.

There are obviously times when I would see a doctor, e.g I do get a PAP
smear done every two years and I see an endocronologist every 6 months
because I have a pituitary tumor. I also see the dentist every 12
months. However, I do believe that most people go overboard in regard
to their healthcare and are generally over-serviced.
Regards,
Linda
>
> --
> ~RT

djken@optusnet.com.au

2005-07-06, 6:06 pm

Ragnar,
This is the problem I have with you. Instead of just replying to
people, you always have to throw in an insult whether it is warranted
or not. You are correct in saying that the post was directed to Grant,
but this is a public NG, so anyone can reply if they want to. The
healthcare industry thrives on over-servicing people. Part of the
reason I had Lasik was so that I could lessen my dependence on the
system. However, I am not stupid. I do have pap smears regularly and I
also visit the dentist every 12 months. I am very aware of health
matters because my 2 older brothers are doctors!
Regards,
Linda

Ragnar

2005-07-07, 8:54 am

You have a pituitary tumor and you are worried about lasik? That is
like someone standing in a river filled with pirhana worried about
getting their hair wet.

On 6 Jul 2005 14:03:09 -0700, djken@optusnet.com.au wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
>RT wrote:
>
>There are obviously times when I would see a doctor, e.g I do get a PAP
>smear done every two years and I see an endocronologist every 6 months
>because I have a pituitary tumor. I also see the dentist every 12
>months. However, I do believe that most people go overboard in regard
>to their healthcare and are generally over-serviced.
>Regards,
>Linda

Ragnar

2005-07-07, 8:54 am

Many of the people being treated in the healthcare system are being
"over-serviced" That often happens when insurance or medicare is
paying the bills. There are many more people who would benefit from
healthcare that aren't getting it.

On 6 Jul 2005 14:09:17 -0700, djken@optusnet.com.au wrote:

>Ragnar,
>This is the problem I have with you. Instead of just replying to
>people, you always have to throw in an insult whether it is warranted
>or not. You are correct in saying that the post was directed to Grant,
>but this is a public NG, so anyone can reply if they want to. The
>healthcare industry thrives on over-servicing people. Part of the
>reason I had Lasik was so that I could lessen my dependence on the
>system. However, I am not stupid. I do have pap smears regularly and I
>also visit the dentist every 12 months. I am very aware of health
>matters because my 2 older brothers are doctors!
>Regards,
>Linda

djken@optusnet.com.au

2005-07-09, 12:17 pm

Ragnar wrote:
> You have a pituitary tumor and you are worried about lasik? That is
> like someone standing in a river filled with pirhana worried about
> getting their hair wet.

I have known about this for over 10 years. It is not life threatening.
I take one table (Cabergoline) per week and this allows me to lead a
perfectly normal life. Without medication, I may lose my peripheral
vision and would suffer migraines and other problems.
Regards,
Linda[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
> On 6 Jul 2005 14:03:09 -0700, djken@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>

Casey

2005-07-09, 12:17 pm

You may also consider reminding Ragnar, since you're a doctor... that
the suction ring can cause posterior vitreous detachment and retinal tears.
And also that glaucoma is difficult to detect in the post-LASIK because it
is hard to get an accurate pressure reading on those surgically thinned
corneas.

<doctor_my_eye@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1120584190.010156.276710@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Alright, Ragnar! Good pickup. Also remind people that when you have
> your refractive error corrected by LASIK, you still have the same
> eyeball that you always had. SO, high myopes still have a high risk of
> retinal tears and detachments even when their LASIK went perfectly.
> Regular eye exams, especially for high myopes, are very important!
>

serebel

2005-07-09, 10:54 pm

Another lie from Mighty casey, You can get an accurate pressure reading
post lasik.

SErebel

CatmanX

2005-07-10, 8:56 am

Hi Linda, sorry to delay the response, but my hard drive died and I
have been to Sydney to spend a bucket load of money on new equipment.

Glaucoma has NO symptoms for most patients. You go blind and don't know
until it is too late. This is why we test everyone over 40 and most
under these days, so we are able to pick up the slightest change in
visual function. In fact, one of my purchases is a new FDT machine that
picks up glaucoma 3 years earlier than normal field screening.

We also have issues such as diabetes, until a few years ago, the
biggest cause of blindness in Australia. 50% of diabetics are picked up
by optometrists.

Everyone should have a test every 2 years regardless, unfortunately,
optometrists have been poor educators, as against dentists who have
been great educators to have a check every 6 months.

Besides, Medicare covers the cost, it takes 1/2 hour to do so why not
get a test is more the question.

Cheers,

grant

Ragnar

2005-07-10, 8:56 am

Eek... dead hard drives are no fun. I am the only person I know of
that can retrieve the data off a dead drive. There are companies that
claim they can, but charge $200 - $1400 to do so, and wind up
retrieving nothing. It takes at least a full day to retrive data off
a dead drive.

I have noticed a pattern with your posts. When you sign off with
"grant" your posts are good, however when you sign off as "dr. grant"
your posts are asinine. Reminds me of Dr. Jeckyll & Mr. Hyde

On 10 Jul 2005 05:09:04 -0700, "CatmanX" <grantm@connexus.net.au>
wrote:

>Hi Linda, sorry to delay the response, but my hard drive died and I
>have been to Sydney to spend a bucket load of money on new equipment.
>
>Glaucoma has NO symptoms for most patients. You go blind and don't know
>until it is too late. This is why we test everyone over 40 and most
>under these days, so we are able to pick up the slightest change in
>visual function. In fact, one of my purchases is a new FDT machine that
>picks up glaucoma 3 years earlier than normal field screening.
>
>We also have issues such as diabetes, until a few years ago, the
>biggest cause of blindness in Australia. 50% of diabetics are picked up
>by optometrists.
>
>Everyone should have a test every 2 years regardless, unfortunately,
>optometrists have been poor educators, as against dentists who have
>been great educators to have a check every 6 months.
>
>Besides, Medicare covers the cost, it takes 1/2 hour to do so why not
>get a test is more the question.
>
>Cheers,
>
>grant

CatmanX

2005-07-10, 5:50 pm

or Ragnar and Ragnar

dr grant

CatmanX

2005-07-10, 5:50 pm

Windows would not boot up, so rather than reload windows, I opted to
get a new hard drive. I could access the old drive using it as a slave
and recover all my data, but some stuff like emails and address book
are gone, what a pain!!!

The old disk is stuffed, so it looks like I made the right call here.

dr grant

Ragnar

2005-07-10, 10:50 pm

In that case, all the data from the old drive should have been
transferred over to a larger hard drive (which is quite easy with the
right software) and then the OS should have been reloaded on the new
drive.
And finally, your old drive should then have been re-partitioned to
block out all bad sectors - if any and used for a slave drive.

Also, it's much better to put the SWAPFILE on a slave drive so it's
not constantly dealing with a fragmented drive and the heads are not
moviing from the swapfile to the normal file areas on the same drive.
And the swapfile should be assigned a fixed size of 1.5 x the amount
of RAM. By default, the swapfile has an undetermed size and changes
as needed - which is not good - it slows everything down.

On 10 Jul 2005 14:30:30 -0700, "CatmanX" <grantm@connexus.net.au>
wrote:

>Windows would not boot up, so rather than reload windows, I opted to
>get a new hard drive. I could access the old drive using it as a slave
>and recover all my data, but some stuff like emails and address book
>are gone, what a pain!!!
>
>The old disk is stuffed, so it looks like I made the right call here.
>
>dr grant