|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > August 2005 > How Glenn Hagele stabbed Dr. Speaker in the back
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 |
How Glenn Hagele stabbed Dr. Speaker in the back
|
|
|
|
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-08-01, 6:01 pm |
| Jeeze Hanson, I had nothing to do with Dr. Speaker or the malpractice
case against him. Your lunacy knows no boundaries.
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 2005-08-01, 10:56 pm |
| Now if Hanson didn't sling it as he does, how would you have any fun on
this board? 
SErebel
| |
| SadbadLASIK.com 2005-08-03, 10:57 pm |
| Well, Glenn - seems like you did get draw attention to the problem of
doctors calling each other whores. Note the following excerpts from the
article:
'Counsel also included articles printed from the web, which suggest via
letters and e-mails that experts who have testified for plaintiffs in LASIK
cases have been subjected to anger and abuse, such as being called "whores"
and "prostitutes." Finally, counsel states that he has approached other
ophthalmologists, some even from outside of the Metropolitan area, three of
whom had declined to testify, even though they had found merit to the claim,
because the defendants included TLC and Mark Speaker.... Defendants are not
impressed with the above. In two paragraphs, counsel for TLC takes issue
with the conclusions plaintiff draws from the article in Ophthalmology News
and characterizes the website offerings as one-sided, prejudicial and
lacking in verification.'
Glenn, you did get ISRS to verify the authenticity of the postings with your
press release, and the subsequent letter that was written by ISRS' law firm:
http://www.lasikfraud.com/isrs/arentfox_3-13-2003.pdf If the documents
didn't get authenticated by ISRS, perhaps the judge in this case would not
have issued an order to protect the expert witness.
|
| |
|
|