|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > August 2005 > Bad LASIK--a geographical problem?
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 |
Bad LASIK--a geographical problem?
|
|
|
| I'm not trying to be facetious here but I've never met anyone else *in
person* who's unhappy with their LASIK results. Why is it online some
people have these incredibly long lists of unhappy people who they
personally know? Are these people they've actually met, know well, heard
about or made up?
The worst personal story I've ever been told in person is by a father of
two who had LASIK done 3 years ago and had incredibly dry eye for one
month after surgery. Now everything is fine and he's very pleased,
although at the time he was understandably freaking out.
Do these bad outcomes happen in geographical pockets? Has anyone ever
mapped this? It seems like everyone in Jane's town has had a bad
outcome. Is it the local surgeon? The sea level? Are they genetically
predisposed to complications or dissatisfaction?
In article <1123424959.7b8f5ffcf2e65786483db047bd2d78bc@teranews>,
"Jane" <Jane@Yahoo_nospam.com> wrote:
> But I didn't have to go far to find other damaged LASIK patients. My
> hairdresser has a bad outcome. My optometrist has dry eye and has to wear
> lower plugs from his LASIK. A guy in my department has pain in his eye even
> from GENTLY touching his eyelid 2 years after surgery. A lady at my Vet's
> office
> has bad dry eye since her LASIK. My dental hygenist can't drive at night
> since
> her LASIK. A sales rep I work with has deteriorating vision and is really
> frightened.
> Another sales rep's husband almost lost his mind from his bad outcome. He
> has
> to wear plugs too, and the vision in one eye is very blurry.
>
> When I go for eye appointments I meet other people in waiting rooms who have
> had very bad LASIK outcomes. The young mother with double vision in one eye
> and blurry vision in the other. She's a 2005 case. The young guy who has
> trouble
> traveling on business because he can't see at night. He has large pupils and
> his surgeon
> went ahead with LASIK anyway without fully informing him of the
> consequences.
--
~RT
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-08-07, 6:04 pm |
| If you want to find a camel in the desert, hang out by a watering
hole.
I have had direct contact with scores of people who have had poor
outcomes because of our ComplicatedEyes.org website and my
participation in many Internet forums. These are "watering holes" for
people with problems.
The stories that frequent some forums may or may not be accurate. On
occasion, there are stories that are so far outside the realm of
probability to be considered suspect. I find that most of the stories
have an element of truth, but there is often creative editing of the
facts. As an example, there was the story of the woman who dislocated
her LASIK flap by taking off her sweater. Sounds pretty scary, doesn't
it. The author conveniently left out that the patient had actually
scraped her eye with her long fingernails while removing the garment
shortly after having surgery. Others publish accusations made by
plaintiffs in malpractice cases but conveniently do not publish the
fact that the lawsuit was adjudicated and the accusations were found
to be without merit.
I call this lying the truth.
As far as geography is concerned, there is a higher concentration of
complications surrounding the communities where inferior doctors
practice. Other than that, complications seem to know no geographical
boundaries.
| |
| Sandy 2005-08-07, 10:58 pm |
|
Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:
Others publish accusations made by
> plaintiffs in malpractice cases but conveniently do not publish the
> fact that the lawsuit was adjudicated and the accusations were found
> to be without merit.
>
> I call this lying the truth.
>
Lying the truth is when Hagele fails to mention the other side of the
coin:
The Schallhorn study among others which appear to have been designed to
show that pupil size doesn't matter so that all of the pupil size
lawsuits would be lost by the plaintiffs.
The doctors who threaten expert witnesses and intimidate them, so that
the plaintiffs lose.
The failure of most of the doctors who see malpractice to stand up for
the wronged patient and assist them in seeking compensation of some
sort for their damaged vision.
Patients who try to sue and run out of money necessary to continue with
the case.
There have been many, many valid malpractice lawsuits that have not
been successful for these and other reasons.
| |
|
| You have to ask people to get the information. Generally they are ashamed
and won't volunteer
it. I went to my dental hygenist for years. She didn't admit to me that she
couldn't drive at night
until after my LASIK. Same with the hairdresser and optometrist. There are
still many people
I haven't told about my LASIK fiasco although I try to remedy that as much
as possible. I believe
in getting the word out. I want everyone in my community to know about those
of us here who
are damaged.
There are excellent support groups in the DC area and in Michigan. Where do
you live?
There are some pockets of bad LASIK. There is a really horrible surgeon in
Plano Texas who has
left a trail of carnage.
"RT" <RTMD24@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:RTMD24-C3A8E7.11152407082005@newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com...
> I'm not trying to be facetious here but I've never met anyone else *in
> person* who's unhappy with their LASIK results. Why is it online some
> people have these incredibly long lists of unhappy people who they
> personally know? Are these people they've actually met, know well, heard
> about or made up?
>
> The worst personal story I've ever been told in person is by a father of
> two who had LASIK done 3 years ago and had incredibly dry eye for one
> month after surgery. Now everything is fine and he's very pleased,
> although at the time he was understandably freaking out.
>
> Do these bad outcomes happen in geographical pockets? Has anyone ever
> mapped this? It seems like everyone in Jane's town has had a bad
> outcome. Is it the local surgeon? The sea level? Are they genetically
> predisposed to complications or dissatisfaction?
>
> In article <1123424959.7b8f5ffcf2e65786483db047bd2d78bc@teranews>,
> "Jane" <Jane@Yahoo_nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
> --
> ~RT
>
| |
|
| Gee, Glenn makes it sound like he interacts with all sorts of patients.
Truth is, he's been
kicked off all the moderated bulletin boards for being hateful and rude to
damaged patients.
So he has to lurk here in this unmoderated forum.
Speaking of hanging out by a watering hole... I met the most damaged LASIK
patients
in Ophthalmologists waiting rooms. Makes sense, I suppose.
As for that flap issue, here is what WebMD has to say about the ease of
displacement
of the flap at any time after surgery:
"The LASIK flap never heals. the LASIK flap can be easily dislodged from
simple
contact with the eye such as a finger poke."
Source: WebMDHealth http://my.webmd.com/content/article/61/68084.htm .
Are you more willing to believe the doctors at Web MD, or the non-doctor
Glenn Hagele.
I read in previous posts that Glenn is some sort of salesman.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Glenn - USAEyes.org" <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message
news:65mcf1dp5k0vt941cv75f7r6kohg7jrnt0@4ax.com...
> If you want to find a camel in the desert, hang out by a watering
> hole.
>
> I have had direct contact with scores of people who have had poor
> outcomes because of our ComplicatedEyes.org website and my
> participation in many Internet forums. These are "watering holes" for
> people with problems.
>
> The stories that frequent some forums may or may not be accurate. On
> occasion, there are stories that are so far outside the realm of
> probability to be considered suspect. I find that most of the stories
> have an element of truth, but there is often creative editing of the
> facts. As an example, there was the story of the woman who dislocated
> her LASIK flap by taking off her sweater. Sounds pretty scary, doesn't
> it. The author conveniently left out that the patient had actually
> scraped her eye with her long fingernails while removing the garment
> shortly after having surgery. Others publish accusations made by
> plaintiffs in malpractice cases but conveniently do not publish the
> fact that the lawsuit was adjudicated and the accusations were found
> to be without merit.
>
> I call this lying the truth.
>
> As far as geography is concerned, there is a higher concentration of
> complications surrounding the communities where inferior doctors
> practice. Other than that, complications seem to know no geographical
> boundaries.
| |
| serebel 2005-08-07, 10:58 pm |
|
Jane wrote:
> Gee, Glenn makes it sound like he interacts with all sorts of patients.
> Truth is, he's been
> kicked off all the moderated bulletin boards for being hateful and rude to
> damaged patients.
> So he has to lurk here in this unmoderated forum.
>
>
>
> Are you more willing to believe the doctors at Web MD, or the non-doctor
> Glenn Hagele.
>
> I read in previous posts that Glenn is some sort of salesman.
>
>
>
Now I know for sure jane is full of it. Glenn has been kicked of those
so called moderated BBs for telling the truth, not saying what they
just want to hear.
Jane "knows" this convenient laundry list of people who she supposedely
interacts with. Yeah, right.
As far as believing WebMD, there is a disclaimer before the interview
begins.
Why didn't you mention that, Jane?
SErebel
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-08-08, 11:53 am |
| Keller has been beating this dead horse ever since one of her doctors
had the audacity to disagree with her "medical opinion" on an issue.
Schallhorn has not, does not, and never has said that pupil size "does
not matter" Keller, and yet you again and again say that he has. This
is an outright lie. He even has gone so far as to state in trade
interviews that this is NOT what he says and that pupil size is
important, but pupil size alone is a poor predictor of who will
develop night vision problems.
As for all of Keller's other rants (nasty doctors this, malpractice
that), those are just the usual noise that really do not deserve or
require a response.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-08-08, 11:53 am |
| A reasonable person would not conclude that truthfully and factually
responding to misrepresentations, lies, and distortions is being
"hateful and rude to damaged patients". Unreasonable people most
certainly have.
| |
|
| Who has credibility? WebMD or the non-doctor, you. You were kicked off
multiple
bulletin boards for being mean to patients. People have saved some of your
hateful
bile. We should start reposting it so that newcomers can see how truly
wretched you
are.
"serebel" <serebel@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1123467340.752128.78270@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Jane wrote:
> Now I know for sure jane is full of it. Glenn has been kicked of those
> so called moderated BBs for telling the truth, not saying what they
> just want to hear.
> Jane "knows" this convenient laundry list of people who she supposedely
> interacts with. Yeah, right.
> As far as believing WebMD, there is a disclaimer before the interview
> begins.
> Why didn't you mention that, Jane?
>
> SErebel
>
| |
| serebel 2005-08-08, 10:58 pm |
| Oooh, go ahead and repost it. Us wretched people need a good laugh at
your expense.
SErebel
| |
| Ragnar 2005-08-12, 5:56 pm |
| Here we go with the Schallhorn study again. Give it a rest.
One surgeon, one study, years ago, and you won't give up on attacking
it. Next topic please.
On 7 Aug 2005 17:48:44 -0700, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>
>Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:
>
>Others publish accusations made by
>
>Lying the truth is when Hagele fails to mention the other side of the
>coin:
>
>The Schallhorn study among others which appear to have been designed to
>show that pupil size doesn't matter so that all of the pupil size
>lawsuits would be lost by the plaintiffs.
>
>The doctors who threaten expert witnesses and intimidate them, so that
>the plaintiffs lose.
>
>The failure of most of the doctors who see malpractice to stand up for
>the wronged patient and assist them in seeking compensation of some
>sort for their damaged vision.
>
>Patients who try to sue and run out of money necessary to continue with
>the case.
>
>There have been many, many valid malpractice lawsuits that have not
>been successful for these and other reasons.
| |
| serebel 2005-08-12, 10:54 pm |
| C'mon Rags you know they can't let anything go. Must be fun to live in
their psyco worlds.
SErebel
|
| |
|
|