|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > August 2005 > Dr. Speaker is too poor to afford a CRSQS "certification"
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 |
Dr. Speaker is too poor to afford a CRSQS "certification"
|
|
|
|
|
| Well, perhaps it is a blessing for Dr. Speaker that he won't be able to
cough up the big bucks required for CRSQA certification. After his
malpractice fiasco his professional credibility won't withstand the
extra damage association with CRSQA would surely bring him.
Dr. Speaker, try shopping at Costco. The canned beans and franks sold
by the case make an inexpensive one-dish lunch or dinner any time...
| |
| serebel 2005-07-31, 10:53 pm |
| Maybe if Tabby went to a quality surgeon and did some basic research
before her surgery, she wouldn't be the bitter little crybaby she is
today.
SErebel
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-07-31, 10:53 pm |
| You may be making an inaccurate assumption. Perhaps she did do the
research and did go to a qualified surgeon. As demonstrated in Dr.
Speaker's case, even well qualified doctors have undesired outcomes.
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 2005-07-31, 10:53 pm |
| I doubt I'm wrong, her posts all have the ring of a Monday morning
quarterback.
SErebel
| |
| Sandy 2005-08-04, 11:54 am |
| That is true. We know that even CRSQA surgeons have bad outcomes and
end up being sued by their damaged patients.
Consider and choose with the confidence that your doctor has paid his
CRSQA fees. That's comforting.
| |
| serebel 2005-08-04, 10:54 pm |
| And here comes Sandy with her weekly little bull story.
SErebel
| |
| Tabby 2005-08-06, 10:55 pm |
| FYI, Tabby went to 'the best of the best' supposedly, to a major University
Hospital LASIK
clinic where young surgeons go to be trained in LASIK and where botched
LASIK cases
are referred for help that actually never happens. Well, guess what. Tabby's
star surgeon did
LASIK on here even though her pupils were over 8 mm, her corneas were thin
and she had rosacea.
Since her corneas were thin and her optical zones are too small she's stuck
with horrible vision.
Not enough tissue to expand the optical zones.
And 'joe smooth surgeon' induced against-the-rule astigmatism in her eyes,
gave her massive higher order aberrations
and of course a very bad case of dry eye that never went away. Getting worse
over time actually, as trends from the Mayo
clinic study would predict.
Tabby tried to do research, but dry eye was nowhere in her patient materials
and neither was loss of contrast
sensitivity. It is hard to research complications you do not know exist.
Tabby has horrible dry eye and
loss of contrast sensitivity that diminishes the quality of her daily life.
Why weren't these complications listed
in her informed consent materials or in the patient labeling supplied by the
laser manufacturer?
Then this major university LASIK center threw her out of the practice. This
is called patient abandonment.
This same center botched two other professional people within a span of
about a month of Tabby's surgery. One guy has blurry vision at all
distances, the 2nd guy has absolutely horrendous aberrations that make it
difficult for him to work.
Another doctor at that center admitted about 10 percent of patients have
visual problems that are not picked
up by a snellen chart, and that a snellen chart isn't a very good way to
measure a LASIK outcome....
Guess what? The patient can see 20/20 on a SNELLEN chart but the letters
look really distorted and ghosted,
and he can't see at night well enough to function... plus he's in constant
pain from his dry eye! His eyelid was stretched
so badly during the procedure that it won't close all the way and he looks
freakish, and he has floaters pulled up by the
suction ring that drive him nuts! But he CAN TECHNICALLY read the 20/20
line! He's a SUCCESS!!!
I know so many people who would love to turn back time to their pre-LASIK
decision day and say 'NO',
HELL NO, and then live a happy life with correctable vision and eyes that
feel comfortable. Can't do that
We're stuck with bad, uncorrectable vision, discomfort - even pain.
Choosing wisely about LASIK means saying 'no' to LASIK. Since LASIK is
demonstrated to damage
every cornea, the only choice you can make with confidence is walking out
the door of that LASIK clinic
with corneas intact and never looking back.
"Glenn - USAEyes.org" <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message
news:8qvqe19fbq2g84ptjro6mvijfpf94t426g@4ax.com...
> You may be making an inaccurate assumption. Perhaps she did do the
> research and did go to a qualified surgeon. As demonstrated in Dr.
> Speaker's case, even well qualified doctors have undesired outcomes.
>
> 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 2005-08-06, 10:55 pm |
| This does'nt make the surgery bad, it makes the surgeon bad. I'd take a
good surgeon in a garden shed over a bad one in a major university all
the time.
SErebel
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-08-07, 9:07 am |
| These circumstances may neither make the surgeon or the surgery bad.
Ocular rosacea is not a contraindication for LASIK if (a big if) the
rosacea is treated and managed. See
http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/subjects/rosacea.htm
Similarly, dry eyes is not a contraindication for LASIK if it is first
treated and managed. Contact lens intolerance due to dry eyes is one
of the more common reasons people consider refractive surgery. See
http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/subjects/dry_eyes.htm
Even if treated and managed, having dry eyes and/or rosacea both
reduce the probability of a successful outcome and increase the
probability of a complication, but that risk can be evaluated and
discussed with the patient before a decision is made. If the level of
risk is acceptable to the patient, surgery may be performed. If the
level of risk is unacceptable, then surgery would be delayed or
abandoned altogether. Since every person is different, every situation
would need to be decided on a case-by-case basis.
Even after all this, an unexpected and undesirable outcome may occur.
LASIK is surgery and all surgery has risk.
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 2005-08-07, 9:07 am |
| Note that Tabby is talking about Tabby below in the 3rd person. This
is a classic indication of mental illness. This was made famous when
Bob Dole used to go around saying things like "Bob Dole wouldn't vote
for that... Bob Dole is for low taxes... "
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 20:54:22 -0400, "Tabby" <Tabby@Yahoo_nospam.com>
wrote:
>FYI, Tabby went to 'the best of the best' supposedly, to a major University
>Hospital LASIK
>clinic where young surgeons go to be trained in LASIK and where botched
>LASIK cases
>are referred for help that actually never happens. Well, guess what. Tabby's
>star surgeon did
>LASIK on here even though her pupils were over 8 mm, her corneas were thin
>and she had rosacea.
>Since her corneas were thin and her optical zones are too small she's stuck
>with horrible vision.
>Not enough tissue to expand the optical zones.
>And 'joe smooth surgeon' induced against-the-rule astigmatism in her eyes,
>gave her massive higher order aberrations
>and of course a very bad case of dry eye that never went away. Getting worse
>over time actually, as trends from the Mayo
>clinic study would predict.
>
>Tabby tried to do research, but dry eye was nowhere in her patient materials
>and neither was loss of contrast
>sensitivity. It is hard to research complications you do not know exist.
>Tabby has horrible dry eye and
>loss of contrast sensitivity that diminishes the quality of her daily life.
>Why weren't these complications listed
>in her informed consent materials or in the patient labeling supplied by the
>laser manufacturer?
>
>Then this major university LASIK center threw her out of the practice. This
>is called patient abandonment.
>This same center botched two other professional people within a span of
>about a month of Tabby's surgery. One guy has blurry vision at all
>distances, the 2nd guy has absolutely horrendous aberrations that make it
>difficult for him to work.
>
>Another doctor at that center admitted about 10 percent of patients have
>visual problems that are not picked
>up by a snellen chart, and that a snellen chart isn't a very good way to
>measure a LASIK outcome....
>
>Guess what? The patient can see 20/20 on a SNELLEN chart but the letters
>look really distorted and ghosted,
>and he can't see at night well enough to function... plus he's in constant
>pain from his dry eye! His eyelid was stretched
>so badly during the procedure that it won't close all the way and he looks
>freakish, and he has floaters pulled up by the
>suction ring that drive him nuts! But he CAN TECHNICALLY read the 20/20
>line! He's a SUCCESS!!!
>
>I know so many people who would love to turn back time to their pre-LASIK
>decision day and say 'NO',
>HELL NO, and then live a happy life with correctable vision and eyes that
>feel comfortable. Can't do that
>We're stuck with bad, uncorrectable vision, discomfort - even pain.
>
>Choosing wisely about LASIK means saying 'no' to LASIK. Since LASIK is
>demonstrated to damage
>every cornea, the only choice you can make with confidence is walking out
>the door of that LASIK clinic
>with corneas intact and never looking back.
>
>
>
>"Glenn - USAEyes.org" <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message
>news:8qvqe19fbq2g84ptjro6mvijfpf94t426g@4ax.com...
>
|
| |
|
|