Lasik Eyes Surgery - What Tabby forgot to mention.

Author

What Tabby forgot to mention.

Ragnar

2005-08-01, 6:01 pm

Tabby fogot to mention that LASIK is the most often performed surgery
and that it is also the most predictable surgery there every was with
the fewest complications.

Even when LASIK doesn't result in 20/20 vision, the results are
virtually always better than the person's vision before surgery. In
the business of making "blind" people see, sometimes you don't get
perfect results. Also myopic eyes are problematic to begin with.

serebel

2005-08-01, 10:56 pm

Ragnar wrote:
> Tabby fogot to mention that LASIK is the most often performed surgery
> and that it is also the most predictable surgery there every was with
> the fewest complications.
>
> Even when LASIK doesn't result in 20/20 vision, the results are
> virtually always better than the person's vision before surgery. In
> the business of making "blind" people see, sometimes you don't get
> perfect results. Also myopic eyes are problematic to begin with.

Tabby didn't forget a thing. Like all the bitter loonies out there,
she'll only spin it one way. At least they give us something to bark
at.

SErebel

SadbadLASIK.com

2005-08-03, 5:56 pm

What SErebel forgot to mention is that every LASIK patient acquires multiple
complications
including corneal nerve damage, bowmans wrinkles, junk under the flap, a
flap that
does not heal, abnormal cells under the flap, cell death/loss under the
flap, abnormal
collagen fibrils, induced corneal distortions that cannot be corrected by
glasses (called
higher order aberrations) etc.

Every eye is damaged after LASIK. Point out a so called 'lie' and I"ll find
you some
literature that proves your accusations are unfounded.

"serebel" <serebel@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1122948111.393046.225020@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ragnar wrote:
>
>
> Tabby didn't forget a thing. Like all the bitter loonies out there,
> she'll only spin it one way. At least they give us something to bark
> at.
>
> SErebel
>

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2005-08-03, 10:57 pm

You had better not talk to any of the millions who are happy with
their LASIK. They are really dedicated to maintaining the 'lie'.

Tongue planted firmly in cheek.

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

2005-08-03, 10:57 pm

SadbadLASIK.com wrote:
> What SErebel forgot to mention is that every LASIK patient acquires multiple
> complications
> including corneal nerve damage, bowmans wrinkles, junk under the flap, a
> flap that
> does not heal, abnormal cells under the flap, cell death/loss under the
> flap, abnormal
> collagen fibrils, induced corneal distortions that cannot be corrected by
> glasses (called
> higher order aberrations) etc.
>
> Every eye is damaged after LASIK. Point out a so called 'lie' and I"ll find
> you some
> literature that proves your accusations are unfounded.
>

Nope, I didn't forget to mention the litany of rehashed spewtem that
you just put forth. My particular fave is the bowman's wrinkles. The
least you loonies can do, is come up with a new category of
"complications" that everyone gets.

SErebel

SadbadLASIK.com

2005-08-04, 8:58 am

Geez,
Just because something happens a lot doesn't mean it is safe or good.
Everybody
used to smoke and thought that was great. Well, guess what. Like LASIK,
smoking harms everyone. It is just a matter of timing and degree as to how
much you are affected.

LASIK always makes your corneas worse. It increases permanent distortions
that cannot be fixed by glasses (called higher order aberrations).
On average, nerve loss is greater than 40% at 3 years after surgery and may
be progressive (get worse) from there. It will get worse as you age.

Many millions of miserable older americans who have had LASIK and suffer
from debilitating dry eye? This is in our future.

LASIK always weakens the corneal structure because the flap never heals.
Even Web MD admits that after LASIK you can always easily dislodge
the flap with something as simple as a finger poke.

It's really difficult to diagnose glaucoma after LASIK, so many people may
have permanent eye damage because of this.

The new larger treatment zones will put more people at risk for corneal
weakening and failure, called ectasia. Many will lose sight.

Celebrity Kathy Griffin lost 30% of her vision from LASIK.

There is nothing safe about LASIK.

Myopic eyes are more prone to retinal detachment. The suction ring
in LASIK makes myopes more at risk for retinal detachment.

LASIK doesn't benefit the actual health of the eye in any way. Actually
it is harmful to the health of the eye in MANY ways.

All LASIK can do is change the refraction of the eye so that there is
a possibility a person may not need glasses. Everyone will need glasses
eventually, so why put yourself at risk for so many problems?

Learn to love your glasses and contacts!
"Ragnar" <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:m29te1h63ev5qttietufpr4b3jrgrh890m@4ax.com...
> Tabby fogot to mention that LASIK is the most often performed surgery
> and that it is also the most predictable surgery there every was with
> the fewest complications.
>
> Even when LASIK doesn't result in 20/20 vision, the results are
> virtually always better than the person's vision before surgery. In
> the business of making "blind" people see, sometimes you don't get
> perfect results. Also myopic eyes are problematic to begin with.

SamregretsLASIK

2005-08-04, 10:54 pm

Glenn, millions of smokers were happy as well. Till they started getting
sick later
and had a miserable old age, hacking away. The full price patients will pay
for the LASIK procedure
is yet to be determined.

I have yet to carefully question a LASIK patient who does not admit to
having
some problems/issues with the procedure.

Sadly, the real problems may be ahead for most post-LASIKs. The newer
'custom' LASIK puts
patients at higher risk for future ectasia because it removes more precious
(and non-renewable)
corneal tissue from the periphery. Look at these stats for damage from
another recent scientific
paper in an excellent journal:

From the full text:

Permanent haze at the flap margin, 100% rate of interface particles, 100%
rate of Bowman's microfolds, 100% permanent interface scar "permanently
altered from normal", 100% epithelial thickening, acutely and chronically
reduced keratocytes, some corneas had "empty spaces" in the interface wound
"filled with foreign material suspicious for plastic particles", necrotic
epithelial cells in the interface, chronically vacuolated keratocytes in the
interface, corneal nerves MIA, and the flap does not fit to the underlying
stroma.

Here's the abstract:

Ophthalmology. 2005 Apr;112(4):634-44.

Ex vivo confocal microscopy of human LASIK corneas with histologic and
ultrastructural correlation.

Dawson DG, Holley GP, Geroski DH, Waring GO 3rd, Grossniklaus HE, Edelhauser
HF.

Department of Ophthalmology, Emory university School of Medicine, Atlanta,
Georgia, USA.

OBJECTIVE: To perform confocal microscopy on postmortem human LASIK corneas
and correlate these findings to histologic and ultrastructure evaluations.
DESIGN: Prospective, consecutive, observational case series. PARTICIPANTS:
Ninety postmortem LASIK corneas (47 patients) were evaluated for
histopathology, of which 22 consecutive corneas (12 patients) were also
evaluated by confocal microscopy. Six normal corneas (3 patients) served as
controls. METHODS: This observational case series involving 22 corneas from
12 patients with postoperative intervals from 1 month to 6.5 years after
LASIK surgery were collected. The corneas were mounted in an artificial
anterior chamber and perfused with balanced salt solution before confocal
microscopy was performed on the center of the cornea. The corneas were then
bisected and processed for light and transmission electron microscopy.
RESULTS: Confocal microscopy, along with histologic and ultrastructural
correlations, demonstrated that the most prevalent alterations in the
centers of LASIK corneas were a slightly thickened epithelium caused by
focal basal epithelial cell hypertrophic modifications, random undulations
in Bowman's layer over the flap surface, and a variably thick hypocellular
primitive stromal interface scar. By using confocal microscopy, the
interface wound was easily identified in 100% of the cases because numerous
brightly reflective interface particles were always present in the
hypocellular primitive stromal scar. These particles were found primarily to
consist of organic cellular constituents, some of which were transient in
nature. CONCLUSION: After LASIK, active stromal wound healing in the central
cornea results in the production of a hypocellular primitive stromal scar,
whereas secondary tissue adjustments seem to cause the Bowman's layer
undulations and the subsequent epithelial cell modifications.

"Glenn - USAEyes.org" <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message
news:2bq2f1506nqefkg5agbhnv0s84qq831376@4ax.com...
> You had better not talk to any of the millions who are happy with
> their LASIK. They are really dedicated to maintaining the 'lie'.
>
> Tongue planted firmly in cheek.
>
> 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.

SamregretsLASIK

2005-08-04, 10:54 pm

SErebel, PLEASE use spell check. 'Sputum' is the correct spelling. And it
isn't
sputum that all patients end up with wrinkling of the bowman's layer. This
is a fact.
Perhaps this causes those 'daybursts' that LASIK patients see, and
contributes to
the loss of contrast sensitivity that is universal after LASIK. Naturally, a
cornea that
is rumpled will not focus light as well as a smooth cornea. Patients will
experience much
scattering and will require more light for every task.

"serebel" <serebel@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1123120895.720483.4820@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> SadbadLASIK.com wrote:
>
> Nope, I didn't forget to mention the litany of rehashed spewtem that
> you just put forth. My particular fave is the bowman's wrinkles. The
> least you loonies can do, is come up with a new category of
> "complications" that everyone gets.
>
> SErebel
>

serebel

2005-08-04, 10:54 pm

Whoopsy, I spelled sputum wrong.

If we all get these disastrous results, since lasik has been done for
years now, where are all the "Blindie zombies" ? BTW, the three or four
people who post on LME and SE under many different aliases don't count.

SErebel

Ragnar

2005-08-05, 9:14 am

Which looney are you? A new day.. a new alias.. you are completely
wrong.

On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 18:55:10 -0400, "SadbadLASIK.com"
<SadbadLASIK@nospam_aol.com> wrote:

>What SErebel forgot to mention is that every LASIK patient acquires multiple
>complications
>including corneal nerve damage, bowmans wrinkles, junk under the flap, a
>flap that
>does not heal, abnormal cells under the flap, cell death/loss under the
>flap, abnormal
>collagen fibrils, induced corneal distortions that cannot be corrected by
>glasses (called
>higher order aberrations) etc.
>
>Every eye is damaged after LASIK. Point out a so called 'lie' and I"ll find
>you some
>literature that proves your accusations are unfounded.
>
>
>"serebel" <serebel@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:1122948111.393046.225020@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2005-08-05, 5:57 pm

The comparison of LASIK to smoking is naive at best, idiotic at worst.

Yes, you can rant and rave that the LASIK sky may fall someday, but
the basic principles of LASIK have been around for over four decades.
LASIK is a new twist, but has years and millions of patients to look
back on for its predictable stability and efficacy in most (certainly
not all) patients. LASIK, like all surgery, is not perfect. Anyone who
demands perfect surgical results every time should never have surgery.

The reported incidence of LASIK induced ectasia is in the neighborhood
of 1 in 10,000. Decades of documentation has shown that if a healthy
cornea has at least 250 microns of untouched tissue (the more the
better) then the cornea remains stable. No matter what system is used
for tissue removal, measurements and calculations can be made to
determine if the patient is at an elevated risk for problems.

Your "analysis" of Dr. Waring et al's report is laughable and does not
warrant a response. People can simply read the actual report and see
the misrepresentations.

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.

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2005-08-05, 5:57 pm

Loss of contrast sensitivity is NOT universal after LASIK. Some
patients have an increase in contrast sensitivity, however an increase
is not very predictable.

While on rare occasions wrinkles (striae) may occur in a LASIK flap,
not all corneas are "rumpled" after LASIK.

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.

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2005-08-05, 5:57 pm

It is hard to imagine someone making so many inaccurate and misleading
statements in one post.

LASIK does not "harm" everyone. nor does LASIK make corneas "worse".
While LASIK does generally increase higher order aberrations across
the board, this is not always the case and higher order aberrations
can be decreased after LASIK, however not very predictably.

Subnasal nerves regenerate to preoperative levels at three years after
PRK and five years after LASIK, but corneal sensitivity (the important
issue) normally returns within the six month healing period.
Absolutely no peer-reviewed scientific study indicates that corneal
nerve loss after LASIK is progressive.

It is not difficult to diagnose and prevent glaucoma caused by
elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) after LASIK

The LASIK flap does heal, but it does not provide significant
structural support. Fortunately, if in a healthy cornea at least 250
microns (more is always better) of untouched tissue remains, the
cornea will remain stable. No matter what the type of procedure or
intended size of treatment zone, measurements and calculations can be
made preoperatively to determine if at least 250 microns will remain.

Kathy Griffin had a problem with epithelial ingrowth because she
failed to return to her surgeon for follow-up care. In fact, she
recently acknowledged in an interview that she was filming a reality
show and did not want to take the time out to get the care necessary
to resolve the progressing problem. A reasonable person would not
blame the surgical procedure because the patient was noncompliant.

Epithelial ingrowth is a rather benign problem that, when it does
occur, can be resolved with timely treatment.

LASIK is considered safe and effective by medical standards and this
has been shown to be accurate millions of times, but no surgery is
perfect. Anyone who demands a perfect outcome every time with no
recovery period should not have LASIK or any elective surgery of any
kind.

There is nothing wrong with loving glasses and contacts, but like just
about everything else in life, they have risk too. It is all a matter
of risk and benefit.

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.

Monika

2005-08-06, 10:55 pm

Lat time I checked the site there was a post saying there were 8,888 members
of surgical eyes. There is a casualty
list for you. The numbers keep growing. You didn't just spell 'sputum'
wrong, you got LASIK wrong. Bad surgery,
hurts eyes, wrecks lives. I used really simple words so that you would 'get
it'.

"serebel" <serebel@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1123209837.217938.198590@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Whoopsy, I spelled sputum wrong.
>
> If we all get these disastrous results, since lasik has been done for
> years now, where are all the "Blindie zombies" ? BTW, the three or four
> people who post on LME and SE under many different aliases don't count.
>
> SErebel
>

Monika

2005-08-06, 10:55 pm

If she's wrong, take up her challenge. Point out a specific point that you
feel is a lie and let her find
some literature to back up her case. Maybe she's telling the truth and
you're just a blow hard who
knows he's been beaten, outclassed and outsmarted. You can't even muster a
snappy comeback.

"Ragnar" <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bsp5f1hd3h4hd5bl3f7as98srqtiuc7ff6@4ax.com...
> Which looney are you? A new day.. a new alias.. you are completely
> wrong.
>
>
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 18:55:10 -0400, "SadbadLASIK.com"
> <SadbadLASIK@nospam_aol.com> wrote:
>
>

serebel

2005-08-06, 10:55 pm

SE has 8,888 members? Bull !!!! Maybe a hundred members with 88
aliases.

SErebel

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2005-08-07, 9:07 am

The number of "members" published at SurgicalEyes is everyone who has
ever registered to use their bulletin board or sent them a donation.
This includes the doctors who volunteered time, people who never had
refractive surgery, people who had good outcomes, and even me. Once
you are counted as a "member", your are never not counted as a member
even if you have not visited the website in years.

In any event, the "membership" number is not representative of the
number of people who have sought information or have been helped by
SurgicalEyes. That number would be significantly greater.

The "membership" number is not representative of the number of people
who have had bad outcomes. Some people counted as members at
SurgicalEyes have not had bad refractive surgery outcomes (like me)
and many more than 8,800 people have had bad refractive surgery
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.

Ragnar

2005-08-07, 9:07 am

This is ridiculous. Perhaps in the entire history of SE there have
been an accumulated 8,888 members - when the site was free. Of those
8,888 members, probably about 5 of them had a legitimate complaint.
These days, SE is just about a dead site. They now charge a
subscription fee. I would be surprised if more than a dozen people
are active members anymore.
None of that is really relevant. SE was obviously a totally biased
site for propagating misinformation designed to scare people. Any
doctor or surgeon who allows their name to be posted there should be
ashamed of themselves. However, if you call those doctors, ask them
if they know they are listed as being on that website.. and the
response will likely be "huh? I never even heard of that website".

On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 20:33:58 -0400, "Monika" <Monika@nospam_aol.com>
wrote:

>Lat time I checked the site there was a post saying there were 8,888 members
>of surgical eyes. There is a casualty
>list for you. The numbers keep growing. You didn't just spell 'sputum'
>wrong, you got LASIK wrong. Bad surgery,
>hurts eyes, wrecks lives. I used really simple words so that you would 'get
>it'.
>
>
>"serebel" <serebel@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:1123209837.217938.198590@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>

Ragnar

2005-08-07, 9:07 am

I don't have the time nor interest in getting into a challenge with
some mental case who knows less than nothing since what they "know" is
wrong.

On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 20:36:20 -0400, "Monika" <Monika@nospam_aol.com>
wrote:

>If she's wrong, take up her challenge. Point out a specific point that you
>feel is a lie and let her find
>some literature to back up her case. Maybe she's telling the truth and
>you're just a blow hard who
>knows he's been beaten, outclassed and outsmarted. You can't even muster a
>snappy comeback.
>
>
>"Ragnar" <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:bsp5f1hd3h4hd5bl3f7as98srqtiuc7ff6@4ax.com...
>

Ragnar

2005-08-07, 9:07 am

I can't resist one comment about that... Even back in the days when SE
was popular, they had a policy of no multilple aliases. However, I
know for a fact that even their core members were posting there using
many different aliases. In fact, the person who made the no multiple
aliases policy was posting with multiple aliases.

On 6 Aug 2005 19:04:20 -0700, "serebel" <serebel@aol.com> wrote:

>SE has 8,888 members? Bull !!!! Maybe a hundred members with 88
>aliases.
>
>SErebel

Mark

2005-08-08, 5:59 pm

You don't have the intellect to do the research to refute her. She has
peer-reviewed
articles to support her claims. You have zero.

"Ragnar" <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u1obf1p9auk8r4lta0k6hf9tpkupo7l0ch@4ax.com...
>I don't have the time nor interest in getting into a challenge with
> some mental case who knows less than nothing since what they "know" is
> wrong.
>
> On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 20:36:20 -0400, "Monika" <Monika@nospam_aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>

serebel

2005-08-08, 10:58 pm

Oh yeah, the loonie fringe are her peers, can't argue with that.

SErebel