|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > September 2005 > Kudos for another Minarik rant
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 |
Kudos for another Minarik rant
|
|
| doctor_my_eye@msn.com 2005-08-20, 11:51 am |
| This little ditty just helped us win another disability court case.
From:
DoctorMyEye.com
THE Place To Go When
Refractive Surgery Goes Wrong!
Dr. Kenneth Minarik, O.D.
Requesting your input please...
Posted: Mon May 23, 2005 1:56 pm
Post subject: Requesting your input please...
First, let me say thank you for such an informative website!
My husband and I are considering LASIK, but are concerned with much of
the information we've uncovered on the internet.
Our situation is somewhat unique. My husband is a physician at the
Cleveland Clinic, and the procedure is provided at no cost to us by the
hospital. Many, many staff here are taking advantage of this, including
5 or so in my husband's department and all are very pleased with the
results.
We've had the introductory appointment which explains the procedure,
performs the basic tests to see if we're good candidates and we spoke
at length with the surgeon. His name is Dr. Steven Wilson and he is
considered to be one of the foremost experts in the field of refractive
surgery. He has published extensive research in the field, lectures
frequenty, and has performed over 8,000 procedures. And he has no
complaints against him with any state medical board!
Our main concerns were the effects we hear so much about, such as halos
and other visual distortions. He explained that this is usually due to
the flap being too small, or wrinkles in the flap, neither of which
should occur under skilled care and appropriate post-op care. Our
understanding is that complications do occur, but rarely in the hands
of a skilled surgeon and appropriate care. Of course, now we wonder...
My husband is about -6.75 with astigmatism and the doctor recommended
conventional LASIK with the Intralase laser for the flap. He said that
re-correction may be needed in about 15% of cases with my husband's
correction.
I'm about -2.75 and the doctor recommended Custom Cornea LASIK using
the microkeratome for me.
If anybody is to have LASIK, this seems to be the right way to do it.
Experienced surgeon, excellent pre and post op care, new technology...
But, we are still scared! We mainly desire this because we are very
active and would love to swim/camp/snorkel without worrying about our
contacts floating away! But, other than the minor inconvenience, we
don't have any problems wearing contacts.
So, finally on to our questions! Are most of the complications and
unhappiness with this procedure because of inexperienced surgeons and
inappropriate care? Or have many of you had bad experiences with event
the most highly qualified doctors? Any other advice? We would really
appreciate your input!
Thank you so much for taking the time to read, and hopefully respond!
Kelsey
Dr. Minarik replies.
Post subject: You are right to be concerned...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...and thanks for the kind words about the website. As you might expect,
the number of patients that have been disabled by a poor LASIK outcome
has been dropping from year to year as the procedure improves and the
lasers and surgeons themselves have become more effective.
With that being said.....
There will always be a small number of patients that will have a
miserable outcome, even in the hands of a skilled surgeon with
excellent equipment. One of my favorite expressions is to create the
analogy as follows: Imagine I am a psychologist who spends his entire
day working with alcoholics. Imagine you and I are old friends, and
we've agreed to go out to dinner after work, for the first time in
years.
At dinner, you manage to drink two glasses of wine before the meal
arrives. Based on my internal conflicts and my daily battles with
alcoholism, how do you think I would react to you on a "gut" level?
Let's go back to talking about LASIK...
My gut reaction in your case is particularly adverse, because I know of
5 physicians that are now drawing permanent disability income from
their private disability insurance because of their LASIK outcomes.
Recently one of those 5 actually took his own life as a result of his
clinical depression that was triggered by his visual disturbances after
LASIK.
When a physician suffers a miserable complication that arises from the
actions of a colleague, the level of betrayal and mistrust that the
victim feels is even more exaggerated than the betrayal that a
non-physician feels. I am reminded of an old truism...the cobbler's
children have no shoes, and physicians make the worst patients.
The risk of having a infectious corneal ulcer from contact lens wear
that will permanently distort your vision and cause a loss of two lines
of acuity or more is about one in 1 in 140,000 cases. The risk of you
having a post-operative surgical result that permanently distorts your
vision is about 2 in ONE HUNDRED.
What do you have to lose? How would living on disability income affect
your ability to raise your children or practice your profession? How
inconvenient is that two minutes that it takes you to put on your
contacts in the morni
Post subject: Thank you...four eyes saved!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Minarik,
A mere thank you doesn't seem enough to express our sincere gratitude!
Your points are very well taken. Though the odds are in are favor, it's
just not a risk either one of us is willing to assume. After all we've
learned from this, and many other websites, comfortably wearing
contacts seems like a blessing, rather than the curse I thought it was!
And for anyone considering these procedures, we'll certainly direct
them to your website!
Sincerely,
Kelsey and Nolan
| |
| Sandy 2005-08-20, 10:54 pm |
| I found it interesting that a doctor's wife would comment on the fact
that Dr. Wilson appears to have no complaints filed with any medical
board, as if that has any meaning.
Although my malpractice case settled out of court for $260,000 and
written complaints were filed against my lasik surgeon, to anyone who
searches the California State Medical Board website his history appears
clean. He committed multiple acts of malpractice upon me, altered my
records and lied about the ridge in my cornea, but the public doesn't
have a way to know that there was an investigation that dragged on for
years, and finally a hearing. They let him off the hook and the
Attorney General's office is going after my optometrist instead.
Please don't trust a surgeon just because you can't find evidence of
complaints being filed. It doesn't mean there aren't any.
| |
| serebel 2005-08-20, 10:54 pm |
|
Sandy wrote:
>
> Although my malpractice case settled out of court for $260,000 and
> written complaints were filed against my lasik surgeon, to anyone who
> searches the California State Medical Board website his history appears
> clean. He committed multiple acts of malpractice upon me, altered my
> records and lied about the ridge in my cornea, but the public doesn't
> have a way to know that there was an investigation that dragged on for
> years, and finally a hearing. They let him off the hook and the
> Attorney General's office is going after my optometrist instead.
>
Here comes the Sandyspam. If there was malpractice, it would have been
found. The docs insurance companysettled for pennies because it was
financially prudent to do so.
> Please don't trust a surgeon just because you can't find evidence of
> complaints being filed. It doesn't mean there aren't any.
Just because a complaint has been filed, it doesn't mean it is true.
SErebel
| |
| serebel 2005-08-20, 10:54 pm |
| I guess you gotta reach back to May to find someone who was scared out
of RS. If your site can do that to someone, they have no business
having RS or any other surgery to begin with.
SErebel
| |
| doctor_my_eye@msn.com 2005-08-21, 11:53 am |
| I actually agree with you on this one. When I tell someone that they
have a 5% chance (or five in a hundred chance) of being miserable after
LASIK, there will be a certain number of people who will automatically
eliminate themselves from considering RS. A large number of those
people "know themselves" well enough that they are more likely to be in
the "failure" group.
| |
| serebel 2005-08-21, 10:54 pm |
|
doctor_my_eye@msn.com wrote:
> I actually agree with you on this one. When I tell someone that they
> have a 5% chance (or five in a hundred chance) of being miserable after
> LASIK, there will be a certain number of people who will automatically
> eliminate themselves from considering RS. A large number of those
> people "know themselves" well enough that they are more likely to be in
> the "failure" group.
The 5% thing you tell them is exagerrated, since most temporary side
effects disappear after a few months. If they choose to think of
themselves as part of a "failure" group, then so be it, life still goes
on.
SErebel
| |
| doctor_my_eye@msn.com 2005-08-22, 11:59 am |
| Sandy, you gotta watch your composition here. Let me emphasize that
Doctor Wilson was not your surgeon. You cannot drop "my surgeon" and
Dr. Wilson's name in the same sentence without it looking like he was
your offending physician.
| |
| Sandy 2005-08-22, 10:55 pm |
| Okay, well they weren't mentioned in the same sentence, but you are
correct to make it clear that Dr. Wilson was not my surgeon. Thanks
for the admonition.
| |
| serebel 2005-08-22, 10:55 pm |
|
doctor_my_eye@msn.com wrote:
> Sandy, you gotta watch your composition here. Let me emphasize that
> Doctor Wilson was not your surgeon. You cannot drop "my surgeon" and
> Dr. Wilson's name in the same sentence without it looking like he was
> your offending physician.
Keller does this all the time. This, she's good at.
SErebel
| |
| Ragnar 2005-08-22, 10:55 pm |
| Once again, Dr. Minarik forgot that he isn't mentally stable and
should avoid long posts. When he sticks to the facts he knows, he
can be useful. When he gets on his soapbox and starts giving his
opinions... reality goes out the door.
On 20 Aug 2005 09:07:54 -0700, "doctor_my_eye@msn.com"
<doctor_my_eye@msn.com> wrote:
>This little ditty just helped us win another disability court case.
>
>From:
> DoctorMyEye.com
>THE Place To Go When
>Refractive Surgery Goes Wrong!
>Dr. Kenneth Minarik, O.D.
>
>
>
>
>
> Requesting your input please...
>
>
>
> Posted: Mon May 23, 2005 1:56 pm
>Post subject: Requesting your input please...
>
>First, let me say thank you for such an informative website!
>
>My husband and I are considering LASIK, but are concerned with much of
>the information we've uncovered on the internet.
>
>Our situation is somewhat unique. My husband is a physician at the
>Cleveland Clinic, and the procedure is provided at no cost to us by the
>hospital. Many, many staff here are taking advantage of this, including
>5 or so in my husband's department and all are very pleased with the
>results.
>
>We've had the introductory appointment which explains the procedure,
>performs the basic tests to see if we're good candidates and we spoke
>at length with the surgeon. His name is Dr. Steven Wilson and he is
>considered to be one of the foremost experts in the field of refractive
>surgery. He has published extensive research in the field, lectures
>frequenty, and has performed over 8,000 procedures. And he has no
>complaints against him with any state medical board!
>
>Our main concerns were the effects we hear so much about, such as halos
>and other visual distortions. He explained that this is usually due to
>the flap being too small, or wrinkles in the flap, neither of which
>should occur under skilled care and appropriate post-op care. Our
>understanding is that complications do occur, but rarely in the hands
>of a skilled surgeon and appropriate care. Of course, now we wonder...
>
>My husband is about -6.75 with astigmatism and the doctor recommended
>conventional LASIK with the Intralase laser for the flap. He said that
>re-correction may be needed in about 15% of cases with my husband's
>correction.
>
>I'm about -2.75 and the doctor recommended Custom Cornea LASIK using
>the microkeratome for me.
>
>If anybody is to have LASIK, this seems to be the right way to do it.
>Experienced surgeon, excellent pre and post op care, new technology...
>But, we are still scared! We mainly desire this because we are very
>active and would love to swim/camp/snorkel without worrying about our
>contacts floating away! But, other than the minor inconvenience, we
>don't have any problems wearing contacts.
>
> So, finally on to our questions! Are most of the complications and
>unhappiness with this procedure because of inexperienced surgeons and
>inappropriate care? Or have many of you had bad experiences with event
>the most highly qualified doctors? Any other advice? We would really
>appreciate your input!
>
>Thank you so much for taking the time to read, and hopefully respond!
>
>Kelsey
>
>
>Dr. Minarik replies.
>Post subject: You are right to be concerned...
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>..and thanks for the kind words about the website. As you might expect,
>the number of patients that have been disabled by a poor LASIK outcome
>has been dropping from year to year as the procedure improves and the
>lasers and surgeons themselves have become more effective.
>
>With that being said.....
>
>There will always be a small number of patients that will have a
>miserable outcome, even in the hands of a skilled surgeon with
>excellent equipment. One of my favorite expressions is to create the
>analogy as follows: Imagine I am a psychologist who spends his entire
>day working with alcoholics. Imagine you and I are old friends, and
>we've agreed to go out to dinner after work, for the first time in
>years.
>
>At dinner, you manage to drink two glasses of wine before the meal
>arrives. Based on my internal conflicts and my daily battles with
>alcoholism, how do you think I would react to you on a "gut" level?
>
>Let's go back to talking about LASIK...
>
>My gut reaction in your case is particularly adverse, because I know of
>5 physicians that are now drawing permanent disability income from
>their private disability insurance because of their LASIK outcomes.
>Recently one of those 5 actually took his own life as a result of his
>clinical depression that was triggered by his visual disturbances after
>LASIK.
>When a physician suffers a miserable complication that arises from the
>actions of a colleague, the level of betrayal and mistrust that the
>victim feels is even more exaggerated than the betrayal that a
>non-physician feels. I am reminded of an old truism...the cobbler's
>children have no shoes, and physicians make the worst patients.
>
>The risk of having a infectious corneal ulcer from contact lens wear
>that will permanently distort your vision and cause a loss of two lines
>of acuity or more is about one in 1 in 140,000 cases. The risk of you
>having a post-operative surgical result that permanently distorts your
>vision is about 2 in ONE HUNDRED.
>
>What do you have to lose? How would living on disability income affect
>your ability to raise your children or practice your profession? How
>inconvenient is that two minutes that it takes you to put on your
>contacts in the morni
>
>
>Post subject: Thank you...four eyes saved!
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Dr. Minarik,
>
>A mere thank you doesn't seem enough to express our sincere gratitude!
>Your points are very well taken. Though the odds are in are favor, it's
>just not a risk either one of us is willing to assume. After all we've
>learned from this, and many other websites, comfortably wearing
>contacts seems like a blessing, rather than the curse I thought it was!
>
>
>And for anyone considering these procedures, we'll certainly direct
>them to your website!
>
>Sincerely,
>Kelsey and Nolan
| |
| Ragnar 2005-08-22, 10:55 pm |
| you got your numbers mixed up there pal.
The exaggerated LASIK figure for complaints is 3% 6 months after
surgery and drops off considerably as time goes on.
The 5% figure you are mentioning must be the 5% complaint rate of
contact lens wearers throughout their entire lifetime. In fact, with
contact lenses, the complaints increase over time as the eyes lose
their tolerance of the lenses.
On 21 Aug 2005 09:25:17 -0700, "doctor_my_eye@msn.com"
<doctor_my_eye@msn.com> wrote:
>I actually agree with you on this one. When I tell someone that they
>have a 5% chance (or five in a hundred chance) of being miserable after
>LASIK, there will be a certain number of people who will automatically
>eliminate themselves from considering RS. A large number of those
>people "know themselves" well enough that they are more likely to be in
>the "failure" group.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-08-22, 10:55 pm |
| In her defence, she has gone through so many ophthalmologists and
optometrists that she probably doesn't remember who worked on her.
On 22 Aug 2005 19:21:16 -0700, "serebel" <serebel@aol.com> wrote:
>
>doctor_my_eye@msn.com wrote:
>
>Keller does this all the time. This, she's good at.
>
>SErebel
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-08-23, 5:56 pm |
| Perhaps, or perhaps not, but I venture to say that every doctor who
has ever seen Keller will remember HER.
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.
| |
| doctor_my_eye@msn.com 2005-08-23, 5:56 pm |
| The 3% number is a compilation of statistics from surgeons who perform
refractive surgery who are evaluating their own work. How can you not
expect it to be biased? If you go to national Optometric Association
conventions, the "miserable LASIK" number is closer to 10% from those
of us "in the trenches". 5% is a nice compromise between 3 and 10 that
still allows a lot of people to be scared to death of LASIK!
| |
|
| So then how can optometrists recommend LASIK when they know that one
out of ten of the patients they refer will be miserable? Not with a
clear conscience, that's for sure.
| |
| serebel 2005-08-23, 10:59 pm |
| Let's see, from those of you in the trenches. how do you arrive at this
"10%" figure when you don't even see the people who have successful
lasik outcomes?
SErebel
| |
| crvc@wyoming.com 2005-08-24, 11:52 am |
| Quote:
<<<<
When a physician suffers a miserable complication that arises from the
actions of a colleague, the level of betrayal and mistrust that the
victim feels is even more exaggerated than the betrayal that a
non-physician feels. I am reminded of an old truism...the cobbler's
children have no shoes, and physicians make the worst patients[vbcol=seagreen]
I'm not a physician but feel a connection anyway because I'm a
veterinarian. I'm wondering if that's a part of the anger at my lousy
LASIK outcome. I don't believe my surgeon felt there were chances of a
poor result. Mainly because he can look at the data when examining me
and see that I'm close to 20:20. He can't see the starbursts and
haloes that make it impossible for me to drive beyond sunset. The
doctor published results of LASIK surgery in one of the early surveys.
There was no mention of night vision problems because there wasn't any
way of quantifiying them.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-08-24, 11:52 am |
| That is not true at all. The 3% number is an exagerrated number that
Glenn came up with. Even he admits it should be re-evaluated and
lowered.
The biased LASIK surgeons say things such as one tenth of 1% (which
is 1/30th the number that Glenn gives out)
The numbers at the national Optemetric Association mean just about
nothing. The average optometrist is not qualified to even make such a
determination. I have a friend who is probably the best optometrist
in west central florida... he is brilliant - it is a pitiful shame
that he does not have the opportunity to put his skills and mind to
work more. The typical optometrist is someone that was trying to
become a medical doctor but flunked out. It is shocking to me how few
optometrists around here even know how to fit contact lenses!
I don't think much of the average ophthalmologist either. If I were
to make up a list of all the ophthalmologists in west central florida,
strike out the names of those that were incompetent, crazy,
ego-maniacs, theives, etc. I wind up with really only one name on
that list... 2 others are O.K.
On 23 Aug 2005 12:43:36 -0700, "doctor_my_eye@msn.com"
<doctor_my_eye@msn.com> wrote:
>The 3% number is a compilation of statistics from surgeons who perform
>refractive surgery who are evaluating their own work. How can you not
>expect it to be biased? If you go to national Optometric Association
>conventions, the "miserable LASIK" number is closer to 10% from those
>of us "in the trenches". 5% is a nice compromise between 3 and 10 that
>still allows a lot of people to be scared to death of LASIK!
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-08-24, 5:54 pm |
| Not quite accurate, Ragnar. The 3% rate of complications at three
months postop continues to be accurate. The type and severity of
complications has changed. The primary reason the 3% rate remains high
is LASIK induced temporary dry eye. All other complications have
diminished in frequency and severity, but this one hangs on at about
the same as years previous.
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.
| |
| doctor_my_eye@msn.com 2005-08-24, 5:54 pm |
| The artificial 3% rate remains high because a great number of patients
have eliminated themselves from having the surgery by talking to
someone who is miserable about their surgery. The old adage is that
the happy customer tells his friend, the unhappy one tells a hundred.
I now have patients who tell me on a daily basis, "I was going to have
LASIK, but then when my co-worker was so miserable....etc etc)
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-08-24, 5:54 pm |
| Your example of "I was going to have LASIK, but then when my
co-worker was so miserable....etc etc)" is as inappropriate a reason
to come to a particular conclusion about LASIK as is "I'm going to
have LASIK because my co-worker had a great outcome!" Both disregard
the unique circumstances of every patient.
No one would expect to wear their friend's contacts and get a good
result. Equally, the specific needs of the individual will better
determine if refractive surgery of any kind is appropriate.
Deciding what to do about LASIK because of one, two, or a few others'
result is not wise (for or against).
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 2005-08-24, 10:54 pm |
| I don't know how many times you expect me to correct you without
stomping on you Minarik.
The 5% number is the percentage of all contact lens wearers who have
complaints.. and as time goes on, they complain more.
3% is number indicating the percentage of LASIK patients with
complaints 6 months after surgery (and it drops off to practically
nothing after 1 year post op) As time goes on, people complain less
about their LASIK.
I really do not mind you continuously getting this twisted around.
Everytime you do it, you prove to even more people that you are a
biased nincompoop.
Aug 2005 09:25:17 -0700, "doctor_my_eye@msn.com"
<doctor_my_eye@msn.com> wrote:
>I actually agree with you on this one. When I tell someone that they
>have a 5% chance (or five in a hundred chance) of being miserable after
>LASIK, there will be a certain number of people who will automatically
>eliminate themselves from considering RS. A large number of those
>people "know themselves" well enough that they are more likely to be in
>the "failure" group.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-08-24, 10:54 pm |
| Every physician offends her. If you ever treated her, she would
write nasty things about you too. She might have a point with you.
On 22 Aug 2005 09:21:47 -0700, "doctor_my_eye@msn.com"
<doctor_my_eye@msn.com> wrote:
>Sandy, you gotta watch your composition here. Let me emphasize that
>Doctor Wilson was not your surgeon. You cannot drop "my surgeon" and
>Dr. Wilson's name in the same sentence without it looking like he was
>your offending physician.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-08-24, 10:54 pm |
| now we are up to 10% wheee...
lets'repeat it again... 3% have some complaints 6 months post lasik.
After a year, that 3% number drops to well under 1%.
Where you pull this 10% number from is a mystery.
Buy since you are the proven pathological liar that you are, this is
the kind of nonsense I suspect from you.
Why stop at 10%? Why don't you just say that 99% of Lasik patients
are in agony and want to kill themselves and everyone else? Where do
you draw the line on your misinformation?
You really ought to be ashamed of yourself.
On 23 Aug 2005 14:01:18 -0700, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>So then how can optometrists recommend LASIK when they know that one
>out of ten of the patients they refer will be miserable? Not with a
>clear conscience, that's for sure.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-08-24, 10:54 pm |
| You are not a physician but you are a veterinarian? Hmmm? Somehow I
think you are making up stories here. Since when is a veterinarian
not a physician?
A veterinarian has to know much more than a human doctor does because
a veterinarian deals with many different species of many different
sizes, and treats an entire spectrum of problems instead of a
specialty as in the case with human doctors. A veterinarian must be a
"jack of all trades" although it is not possbile to be expert at
everything since they don't specialize.
On 24 Aug 2005 07:10:34 -0700, crvc@wyoming.com wrote:
>Quote:
><<<<
>When a physician suffers a miserable complication that arises from the
>actions of a colleague, the level of betrayal and mistrust that the
>victim feels is even more exaggerated than the betrayal that a
>non-physician feels. I am reminded of an old truism...the cobbler's
>children have no shoes, and physicians make the worst patients
>
>I'm not a physician but feel a connection anyway because I'm a
>veterinarian. I'm wondering if that's a part of the anger at my lousy
>LASIK outcome. I don't believe my surgeon felt there were chances of a
>poor result. Mainly because he can look at the data when examining me
>and see that I'm close to 20:20. He can't see the starbursts and
>haloes that make it impossible for me to drive beyond sunset. The
>doctor published results of LASIK surgery in one of the early surveys.
>There was no mention of night vision problems because there wasn't any
>way of quantifiying them.
| |
| serebel 2005-08-24, 10:54 pm |
|
doctor_my_eye@msn.com wrote:
> The artificial 3% rate remains high because a great number of patients
> have eliminated themselves from having the surgery by talking to
> someone who is miserable about their surgery. The old adage is that
> the happy customer tells his friend, the unhappy one tells a hundred.
> I now have patients who tell me on a daily basis, "I was going to have
> LASIK, but then when my co-worker was so miserable....etc etc)
How on Earth can someone being talked out of lasik be included in any
lasik statistics?????
SErebel
| |
|
|
Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:
> Your example of "I was going to have LASIK, but then when my
> co-worker was so miserable....etc etc)" is as inappropriate a reason
> to come to a particular conclusion about LASIK as is "I'm going to
> have LASIK because my co-worker had a great outcome!" Both disregard
> the unique circumstances of every patient.
>
> No one would expect to wear their friend's contacts and get a good
> result. Equally, the specific needs of the individual will better
> determine if refractive surgery of any kind is appropriate.
>
> Deciding what to do about LASIK because of one, two, or a few others'
> result is not wise (for or against).
>
> 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.
Deciding against a surgery (which is advertised like crazy like it's no
more serious than a haircut) because you've seen firsthand how
miserable another's life can be with impaired vision is a very good
reason to decide against risking your own eyesight for an elective
procedure.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-08-25, 9:01 am |
|
[A[[AXQ_XDSTAR]\PG]NVAQUVM
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 05:53:52 GMT
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.lasik-eyes:46372
There is no doubt that people will make irrational decisions based
upon emotion. In my experience, those tend to be poor decisions.
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.
| |
| Sandy 2005-08-25, 11:52 am |
|
Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:
> There is no doubt that people will make irrational decisions based
> upon emotion. In my experience, those tend to be poor decisions.
>
> 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.
I am not referencing making an emotional decision, but rather, an
informed decision as to the risks and possible consequences of elective
surgery on the eyes.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-08-25, 5:57 pm |
| In fact, Keller, the only justification to decide against LASIK that
you are presenting in this thread is an uninformed emotional response,
not an informed rational decision.
Knowledge of the possibility of complications does not constitute an
informed decision. An informed decision is based upon the probability
of complications after consideration of the unique circumstances of
the individual. There is a big difference between possibility and
probability. There are a gazillion things that can kill you every day,
but the probability of seeing tomorrow is pretty good for most.
Everyone must measure the potential benefit of the convenience of a
reduced need for corrective lenses against the potential risk of a bad
outcome based upon their unique circumstances after being properly
evaluated.
Keller can go emotional about a fictional co-worker who had a bad
outcome, but even in the real world that outcome may have absolutely
nothing to do with someone considering LASIK today. A 25 year old high
hyperope is completely different than a 50 year old high myope. The
treatment options and probable outcome of one is completely different
to the other.
You had a bad outcome from surgery performed years ago. The unique
circumstances of your own surgery(s) and the fact that so much has
changed in the years hence means that your own outcome is quite
irrelevant to someone contemplating refractive surgery today. Nobody
should make a decision against LASIK because you had a bad outcome,
any more than someone should make a decision to have LASIK because
SErebel is happy with his outcome. One is just about as irrelevant as
the other.
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 2005-08-25, 5:57 pm |
| Thanks for splitting hairs on the most minor of details which nobody
could care less about.
Your numbers are also exagerrated and don't come from god either.
Unless something needs correcting, I would suggest not correcting it.
Actually, I was being more negative than you. I thought your 3%
number was for the 6 month mark. It really makes no sense to have a
number attributed to the 3 month mark because that is before the
expected "final results" are to be expected. With LASIK, the results
are somewhat stable after about 6 months, with PRK - a year.
An evaluation at 3 months is like saying "90% of people with broken
arms complain of stiffness, swelling, and itching after a month" No
kidding!
And I am now officially tired of correcting people about dry eye vs.
dry eyes. Anybody who calls the post operative dryness of LASIK "dry
eye" is not competent to be giving out information to anyone. That is
like calling a benign mole a malignant tumor.
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 17:18:42 GMT, Glenn - USAEyes.org
<glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:
>Not quite accurate, Ragnar. The 3% rate of complications at three
>months postop continues to be accurate. The type and severity of
>complications has changed. The primary reason the 3% rate remains high
>is LASIK induced temporary dry eye. All other complications have
>diminished in frequency and severity, but this one hangs on at about
>the same as years previous.
>
>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 2005-08-25, 5:57 pm |
| Why I bother replying to a proven pathogical liar is beyond me. But
I am anyway.
LASIK is not advertised much at all anymore. It doesn't need to be
advertised. And as for it not being more serious than a haircut.
That is actually a good analogy. It takes about the same time to
perform as a haircut, and the pain involved is about the same.
Actually, I got a haircut about 2 years ago with a set of new clippers
that cut the tissue where my ears join my head and had blood streaming
down. and the clippers were quite hot. LASIK was less of an ordeal
than that haircut.
On 24 Aug 2005 22:39:31 -0700, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>
>Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:
>
>Deciding against a surgery (which is advertised like crazy like it's no
>more serious than a haircut) because you've seen firsthand how
>miserable another's life can be with impaired vision is a very good
>reason to decide against risking your own eyesight for an elective
>procedure.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-08-25, 5:57 pm |
| As I recall, you studied up on refractive surgery for 5 to 10 years
before having it done. And you worked in a doctors office before they
fired you. Just how informed does a patient need to be?
On 25 Aug 2005 08:38:35 -0700, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>
>Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:
>
>I am not referencing making an emotional decision, but rather, an
>informed decision as to the risks and possible consequences of elective
>surgery on the eyes.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-08-25, 5:57 pm |
| Keller worked in a doctor's office before having refractive surgery?!
I didn't know that. If true, this fact would certainly put all her
cries of "I was not informed" in a different perspective.
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 2005-08-25, 5:57 pm |
| There is most certainly a difference between naturally occurring dry
eyes and LASIK induced temporary dry eyes. For this reason I am
diligent in pointing out the "temporary" and "LASIK induced" part.
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.
| |
| ycdbsoya 2005-08-26, 5:55 pm |
| Glenn:
Every time you engage in any repartee with these two clowns it further
erodes your cred. Frick and Frack need to go away, they are destroying
this board.
And please stop referring to Sandy as "Keller." That method of
addressing someone is a high school leftover and should not be in the
vernacular of someone who holds himself out to be an industry rep.
You have become a Board Bully yourself. You just dress up your language
a little so you sound marginally more erudite. You shout down any
contrary views just as they do. And you are in the same pew as these
losers. Give these peeps who inquire or have something to say a XXXXing
break Glenn, you don't own this board.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-08-26, 5:55 pm |
| Not surprisingly, I disagree with some of your opinions.
I have referred to Sandy Keller as "Keller" and Brent Hanson as
"Hanson" in the same manner that many publications refer to a person
after being first introduced in an article. When first presented, the
entire name is used, thereafter only the last name is used. It has no
purpose other than to provide a shortened method to identify the
subject person, and I don't believe I was the first to use this method
to address them.
For the most part, my "engagement" with Frick, Frack, or anyone else
is directly related to a point, statement, or fact that I believe is
important enough to warrant clarification or comment.
How, exactly, have I become a "Board Bully"? If I "shout down any
contrary views" it is by presenting substantiated fact to support my
position. If facts are contrary to someone's views, I really don't see
a problem in making that known.
Occasionally I will state an opinion, but I try to make sure the
reader is able to decipher opinion from fact. As far as I can see
there is nothing that I do to limit anyone else's participation in
this newsgroup. If I could limit participation, I think there would be
a lot more polite language.
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.
| |
| ycdbsoya 2005-08-26, 5:55 pm |
| You sound so collegially phony with the name thing.
Of course you don't see a problem. Your spin on the Del Russo CRSQA
Cert is an example. You pulled the same malarkey with Kawesch.
You are not a doctor, true. But admit it, you're just a spin doctor, a
thinly-disguised industry shill and apologist.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-08-26, 5:56 pm |
| When a surgeon no longer meets our requirements, we decertify that
surgeon. There is no "malarkey" about that.
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 2005-08-26, 10:54 pm |
| Who the hell made Frank Boydston the hall monitor? Who the hell are you
to tell anyone how or what to post? I aint going away Frank. If you
don't like it, too friggin' bad!!!
SErebel
| |
|
|
Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:
> Keller worked in a doctor's office before having refractive surgery?!
> I didn't know that. If true, this fact would certainly put all her
> cries of "I was not informed" in a different perspective.
>
> Glenn Hagele
> Executive Director
> USAEyes.org
>
That's right Hagele. I worked in a doctor's office. He is an
ORTHODONTIST, and his office is downstairs from my former OD's office.
I was a registered dental assistant with a coronal polish license and
quit when 7 mos. pregnant with my first child. That experience
provided me with the information necessary to make an informed decision
about lasik???
I had asked my former OD about RK about 20 years ago and he told me
that he didn't like the idea and was too conservative to recommend it.
I put the idea of refractive surgery out of my mind, until the summer
of 1999 when I was having a tough time tolerating GP lenses. Getting
sand kicked into my eye at the beach caused so much pain that I decided
I'd have lasik if I was a candidate. The only doctor I consulted prior
to surgery was my OD. No doctor ever told me I was not a good
candidate for laser eye surgery. In fact, I was told that I was an
excellent candidate, and later discovered that my OD had written "lasik
candidate" on my chart several months before the word "lasik" was ever
mentioned while he and I were in the same room.
Christopher "Ragnar" Roiland has a serious reading comprehension
problem.
| |
|
| There is also a difference between "naturally occurring dry eyes" or
"LASIK-induced temporary dry eyes" and "LASIK-induced chronic dry eyes".
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-08-27, 8:55 am |
| I would think that someone who worked in healthcare - even in dental
health care - would be more aware that there are variables from
provider to provider. Perhaps not.
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.
| |
|
| So much has changed, Hagele? Are flaps not still being cut? Are
patients no longer having conventional lasik? Are all of those
antiquated Visx lasers from 1999 in the landfills? How about the
Hansatome microkeratomes? Obsolete? Has DLK been eradicated? Are
there no more bad flap cuts? No more bad surgeons? No more irregular
corneas after surgery? No more dry eyes post-lasik?
It's still lasik, and it's still crippling an unacceptable percentage
of patients.
When a patient reads the informed consent form and it says that he can
lose vision from lasik surgery, is his decision to not proceed
considered an "uninformed emotional response"? How is that different
from actually witnessing that someone's vision has been damaged by this
procedure, and deciding not to have elective eye surgery? A person
has learned what can go wrong, decides not to proceed, and you call
them "uninformed" and "emotional"? You seem to be belittling anyone
who decides against surgery for this reason, Mr. Patient Advocate (Not!)
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-08-27, 8:55 am |
| You are nothing if not predictable, Keller. As expected you drag out
each and every single incident that has been "perpetrated" on you and
go on and on about how it all still exists. As I have said many times.
there is a big difference between possibility and probability.
Let's take just one of your maladies. What do you think is the
probability that someone would not have DLK diagnosed if it occurred
today? Even you must be able to set aside the anti-LASIK agenda long
enough to acknowledge that DLK is much better identified, diagnosed,
and treated today than years ago when you had surgery. You
consistently go on and on as if all technology, techniques, and
understanding of refractive surgery stopped the day you had LASIK and
that things have not changed. A lot has changed since you had surgery,
Keller.
As to your statement of an "unacceptable percentage" of patients with
complications: one patient with complications is unacceptable, but
complications are a reality of all surgery and LASIK is not immune to
surgery's limitations. There is always risk. Even if the risk of
serious problems has diminished in the years since you have had
surgery, there is still risk. Even if the outcomes have become better
since you had surgery all those many years ago, there is still no such
thing as a perfect surgery.
What patients considering refractive surgery need to do is consider
the potential benefit against the probability of a bad outcome after a
complete examination by a competent doctor, and then determine for
themselves if (based upon their own values) that is an "unacceptable
percentage" or not. People are able to make their own decisions,
Keller.
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.
| |
|
| That's BS Glenn. Most people trust their doctors. Maybe from your
position you have some reason to not to? Really, why should Sandy have
gone beserk double guessing her optometrist if he told her she was an
ideal candidate?
There was no benefit of hearing other people's experiences (good or bad)
at that time because these internet communities did not yet exist.
Nowadays the responsibility for decent health care has fallen on the
shoulders of the consumer/patient. It's all about doctors protecting
their own asses from lawsuits and making money. Blaming the patient for
a bad outcome is just WRONG unless they happen to also be a specialist
in that field and have a degree. What are we paying doctors for anyway
if patients have to become experts before having any procedure done?
LASIK is a "cosmetic" elective procedure that has been disguised as
medicine. Until the distinction is made transparent, the "patient"
should not have to become an "expert" to have the "surgery" and have the
onerous responsibility of it being a success.
It is no more someone's fault they had a bad outcome as a good outcome
(unless they knowingly lie or withhold info). The "DOCTOR" is
responsible for this.
In article <m800h1tr1mhb9set7iomes22gpnsv52n22@4ax.com>,
Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:
> I would think that someone who worked in healthcare - even in dental
> health care - would be more aware that there are variables from
> provider to provider. Perhaps not.
>
> 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.
--
~RT
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-09-24, 2:38 pm |
| Hi RT,
Speculating about what Keller could have, should have, or actually did
is really quite fruitless, and furthermore nothing excuses the
acknowledge malfeasance of her doctors. That is not my point at all.
As I said, I personally would have thought that someone who worked in
healthcare - especially something like orthodontia that nearly always
comanages patients with general dentistry and is an industry rampant
with financial inducements - would be at least generally aware that
arrangements between physicians exist and that the quality of care can
vary greatly from doctor to doctor.
I don't suggest anyone spend their days second guessing their doctors,
but there is more than one optometrist and there is more than one
refractive surgeon in virtually every market. What I do suggest is
that second and third opinions are quite valuable. Someone recently
posted confusion because of two very different opinions from two
different surgeons. It is much better to learn these differing
opinions before the surgery, rather than after the fact.
While the Internet with its forums, websites, and newsgroups may not
have had much information available about LASIK at the time Keller had
her surgery, second and third opinions were most certainly available.
I'm surprised that someone working in any area of healthcare did not
seek the opinion of an additional surgeon. That is surprise, not
condemnation.
Today's patients have the benefit of evaluation from multiple doctors,
Internet information, newer techniques and technology, plus a
significantly greater physician knowledge base.
You ask if from my position I have some reason to not trust doctors.
To start with, if all doctors performed equally, something like CRSQA
would not be necessary.
I'm a cynic at heart and have never held any profession in awe.
Doctors are people and people screw up all the time. I also have
worked as a consultant in the healthcare industry since 1982 and have
worked with physicians, facilities, and insurance plans. From my
perspective, one should trust doctors as much as any other service
provider. No more and no less. They suffer from the same variables as
virtually every other industry.
I do not agree that it is now the patient's sole responsibility to
find decent general healthcare (that is spread between patient,
government, and insurance), but I do agree that if the procedure is
elective or cosmetic, it IS the patient's responsibility to evaluate
the qualifications of the potential doctor. People should not need to
be as expert as you or I, but seeking the opinion of more than one
surgeon is reasonable.
Even if someone plunks down cash at the first refractive surgeon s/he
finds in the Yellow Pages and has surgery the same day as the first
exam, it is not a compliant patient's fault that a bad outcome occurs.
There are, however, steps a conscientious person considering an
elective procedure can take to help raise the probability of getting a
good outcome. I recommend that every patient at least seek multiple
surgeon opinions and am surprised when someone who has a history of
working in any area of healthcare does not.
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.
| |
|
| In article <3241h1pav3fvb2dlqe7fi0qt8ju89dd40u@4ax.com>,
Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:
> I recommend that every patient at least seek multiple
> surgeon opinions and am surprised when someone who has a history of
> working in any area of healthcare does not.
That is good advice, but as someone who worked in the health insurance
business you should not be surprised that more people do not seek second
opinions as insurance doesn't always cover the office visit to get a
second opinion.
The tricky thing with co-management for the average person is that one
has the illusion that one is getting a second opinion--after all, two
doctors have examined your eyes and declared you a perfect candidate!
This issue is further clouded by the fact that for the average person,
if one trusts one's doctor, optometrist, dentist or whatever, one
usually accepts a referral as an endorsement, not as a business
transaction.
Yes, medicine like anything else is caveat emptor.
--
~RT
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-09-24, 2:38 pm |
| I absolutely agree that someone in comanagement may rightfully feel
that a second opinion has already been provided. In the best of
circumstances, that is exactly what has occurred.
Directly referencing Keller's situation; she had a history of working
in a dental health care environment where comanagement is common and
inducements are rampant. That is why I am surprised that she would not
have a better understanding of OD/MD comanagement as being (at least
in part) a business transaction. Whether or not she did is of little
consequence to someone considering refractive surgery today, but this
is one area where Keller's experience is relevant now.
Comanagement is a medical and business arrangement between two or more
doctors and both medicine and business can influence a particular
recommendation or referral. In the best of circumstances the patient
gets the benefit of a check and balance between competent eye health
care professionals. In the worst of circumstances it is payment for
patient referral without serious consideration of the surgeon's
qualifications.
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 wrote:
> I absolutely agree that someone in comanagement may rightfully feel
> that a second opinion has already been provided. In the best of
> circumstances, that is exactly what has occurred.
>
> Directly referencing Keller's situation; she had a history of working
> in a dental health care environment where comanagement is common and
> inducements are rampant. That is why I am surprised that she would not
> have a better understanding of OD/MD comanagement as being (at least
> in part) a business transaction. Whether or not she did is of little
> consequence to someone considering refractive surgery today, but this
> is one area where Keller's experience is relevant now.
>
> Comanagement is a medical and business arrangement between two or more
> doctors and both medicine and business can influence a particular
> recommendation or referral. In the best of circumstances the patient
> gets the benefit of a check and balance between competent eye health
> care professionals. In the worst of circumstances it is payment for
> patient referral without serious consideration of the surgeon's
> qualifications.
>
> Glenn Hagele
> Executive Director
> USAEyes.org
Glenn, I started at 22 years old and was working FOR an orthodontist,
not AS one. I was not privy to any doctor's presumed (by you)
co-management arrangements or financial incentives during my employment
as a dental assistant. For Pete's sake! My job was to work in the
mouths of the patients and later to handle patient accounts, NOT to
manage the doctor's private affairs. The orthodontist I was working
for was like a second father to me. He was tops in his field, yet his
fees were lower than most of the others in the area. He was honest and
caring. I had total respect for him as a person and a doctor. (He even
did braces on all of my kids.) He knew my OD well--we all worked in
the same building and gave each other discounted or traded services.
Even after I quit, the general dentist in the building (still my
dentist) gave me a 50% discount for several years, just as the ortho is
still doing with my kids' braces.
In discussing my lasik problems with my former employer (the
orthodontist) a couple of years ago, he told me that the OD had missed
a cataract in his own eye, necessitating another opinion elsewhere.
>From that point forward, he stopped trading services and stayed with
the new eye doc. One of my former co-workers in the orthodontist's
office had PRK a couple of years before I had lasik, and she is
extremely unhappy with her vision, although my OD referred her to a
different surgeon. She was not a good candidate either. I learned all
of this AFTER my surgery, because I hadn't worked in the building for
12-13 years and was really out of the loop.
The state Attorney General's Office is prosecuting my former OD. I
have done everything possible to get them to drop the case because too
much time has passed and his young son just died a few weeks ago of
cancer. I feel that life for my family and his has been tough enough
since my surgery. They told me that it's not my case--it belongs to
the state, they have found wrongdoing and incompetence, and they have
to protect the citizens of California. They don't hold me responsible
for what I was and wasn't told.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-09-24, 2:38 pm |
| Keller, considering that you had a history of working in a dental
health care environment where comanagement is common and inducements
are rampant, I am surprised that you would not have a better
understanding of OD/MD comanagement as being (at least in part) a
business transaction. Hey, if you want to claim that you were totally
unaware, so be it. I considered you brighter and more aware than that.
As I said Keller, what you did, didn't, or will admit is really not
very relevant to someone considering refractive surgery today. Heck,
your LASIK has become so irrelevant you don't even maintain your own
website anymore.
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, once again I will state that my position at the dentist's office
did not make me privy to arrangements he may or may not have had with
other doctors. If you, as the self-proclaimed "patient advocate",
want to blame me for my lasik complications, your true agenda is
shining on through.
My LASIK experience is not irrelevant, as you claim. The same
complications are still happening. The same improper referrals go on
behind the scene. Same old same old.
I chose to relinquish control of my websites because my business has
skyrocketed over the past year, we've been very busy building a new
home, moving into it, renovating the house we lived in while ours was
being built and preparing it to be rented out again, starting another
ecommerce business, etc, etc, etc. My life is full and I have no time
to keep up with the goings-on in the lasik industry. My choices were
to shut down my websites, or give them to someone who could keep them
updated with the latest information.
I am so busy at work that my husband has spent the summer using up all
of his accrued vacation time to help me. He has three weeks left, and
then he is quitting his job at Northrop (formerly TRW), where he has
been employed for the last 25 years. He will spend about 6-10 months
finishing up lots of details on our new home and completing the
restoration of the Shelby, and then he will run the new business which
our sons will eventually take over.
My lasik experience has left a bitter taste in my mouth and I want to
forget about it. I feel that I did a lot to educate the public---did
my share, and it's time to move on. I will testify against my OD in
November, and then I am done. Spending time defending myself against
you and Christopher "Ragnar" Roiland is a foolish waste of my time and
I am finished with that as well. I don't have time to search the
internet for new studies/articles/etc on lasik to contribute to this
group, so I am really wasting time here. Being involved in this group
is toxic to my soul and I no longer wish to subject myself to your
ridicule and false accusations.
Someday when I look back on my life, I want to know that I pursued the
truth, and not that I called myself something that I was not.
"This is your life...are you who you want to be?" (Switchfoot)
Goodbye.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-09-24, 2:38 pm |
| You really are comical, Keller. If I said the sky was blue, you would
construe that to "blaming" you for your LASIK complications. Of
course, I said no such thing and I pointed out that none of the
possible mitigating circumstances excused the acknowledged malfeasance
of your doctors.
I have no doubt that you think what happened to you many years ago is
relevant today, but so little is the same today as back then that -
other than generalities - few are going to benefit from the specifics
of your case.
It is my opinion that if your information was so relevant, you would
not have abandoned your websites to a SurgicalEyes board member, no
matter how busy you are with your life. Come 'on Keller, how much work
does it take to keep a website up with the history of what happened
umpteen years ago?
Sure you pursued the truth. Hopefully someday you will actually catch
up with it.
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 2005-09-24, 2:38 pm |
| What a surprise, Keller has a "former co-worker" who is unhappy with
PRK. I have this friend............
She is also "done" here, yet she always comes back.
Oh yeah, everything she makes up is irrelevent.
SErebel
| |
| Ragnar 2005-09-24, 2:38 pm |
| Now you are calling them both "dry eyes".
You can start avoiding the confusion by calling the somewhat
permanent, chronic severe dryness condition DRY EYE which is the
proper term.
The temporary dryness in the first months following refractive surgery
should be called dryness or even dry eyes.
The cause and the treatment of the two conditions is completely
different. Whenever a doctor prescribes restasis (which is effective
in treating dry eye) to treat the dryness associated with refractive
surgery, they are wasting the patient's time and money since restasis
has no more effect on the tempoarary dryness than tap water does.
Restatis treatments cost about $80 per month, are a bit painful
because the drops are irritating, and have no big effect until 3
months of treatment even when treating true "dry eye". This can be
confusing to people because the temporary dryness following refractive
surgery lasts about 3 months. Therefore, if someone were prescribed
restasis, and took the 3 month treatment, they might attribute the end
of dryness to the restasis rather than the normal healing process.
The metabolisim of disturbed tissue is temporarily accellerated in the
healing process. The best example I can think of to illustrate this
is this: when you sustain an injury to a fingernail or toenail, the
existing toenail or fingernail is rapidly replaced with a completely
new one. This new growth is perhaps a hundred times faster than the
normal growth of the nail. The metabolic change in the healing of the
eye following refractive surgery is the primary cause of the temporary
dryness.
Finally, dryness in the eyes is not at all uncommon. In fact, it is
expected - as are cataracts, as one gets elderly. However, even that
dryness is not the same as the condition known as "dry eye".
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 21:22:30 GMT, Glenn - USAEyes.org
<glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:
>There is most certainly a difference between naturally occurring dry
>eyes and LASIK induced temporary dry eyes. For this reason I am
>diligent in pointing out the "temporary" and "LASIK induced" part.
>
>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 2005-09-24, 2:38 pm |
| You revised your story on this one bigtime lady.
If it was relevant, I would look it up. However, you are irrelevant -
so I won't bother.
On 26 Aug 2005 22:01:09 -0700, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>
>Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:
>
>That's right Hagele. I worked in a doctor's office. He is an
>ORTHODONTIST, and his office is downstairs from my former OD's office.
>I was a registered dental assistant with a coronal polish license and
>quit when 7 mos. pregnant with my first child. That experience
>provided me with the information necessary to make an informed decision
>about lasik???
>
> I had asked my former OD about RK about 20 years ago and he told me
>that he didn't like the idea and was too conservative to recommend it.
>I put the idea of refractive surgery out of my mind, until the summer
>of 1999 when I was having a tough time tolerating GP lenses. Getting
>sand kicked into my eye at the beach caused so much pain that I decided
>I'd have lasik if I was a candidate. The only doctor I consulted prior
>to surgery was my OD. No doctor ever told me I was not a good
>candidate for laser eye surgery. In fact, I was told that I was an
>excellent candidate, and later discovered that my OD had written "lasik
>candidate" on my chart several months before the word "lasik" was ever
>mentioned while he and I were in the same room.
>
>Christopher "Ragnar" Roiland has a serious reading comprehension
>problem.
|
| |
|
|