Lasik Eyes Surgery - LVI / Eyeglassworld

Author

LVI / Eyeglassworld

serebel

2005-09-24, 2:41 pm

Over the last year or so, this "corp" has been labeled (rightfully so)
as an industry pariah.
What puzzles me is that apparently a lot of SE/LME people are former
patients of LVI. If barbara Berney/Artistwoman is also a former patient
of LVI, why doesn't she, via SE rail against them?
All over both sites,(SE / LME) Alcon is crucified. To these people,
shouldn't LVI bear the brunt of their anger? What gives?

SErebel

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2005-09-24, 2:41 pm

I believe you may recall that when LVI got themselves into trouble a
while back and a high problem rate was stated, Ron Link as
SurgicalEyes represented was quoted as saying something to the effect
that their outcomes were about the norm. Rather than point out a real
problem with a single provider, he attempted to imply that all LASIK
was problematic. IMO, Link and SurgicalEyes came off as apologists for
LVI.

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, 2:41 pm

I remember this. Now I'm wondering if LVI gave a "contribution" to SE
to keep things from coming back to them. If LVI screwed me up, I'd take
their bribe and then hit them in public any way. Let them sue.

SErebel

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2005-09-24, 2:41 pm

I would be very surprised if that was the case. I think Link was just
trying to make all LASIK look as bad as the lowest common denominator.

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

2005-09-24, 2:41 pm

Regretfully, there have been a limited number of investigations of LVI
because they employ damn good lawyers and aggressively defend their
business practices. In "Bab's" case, for example, the pre-operative
examination was done in Illinois by an optometrist, then her surgery
was done in Wisconsin. By putting the store just 12 miles from the
state line, it became a "convenient" way to emasculate her lawsuit.
Technically, her optometrist committed malpractice here in Winnegago
County, Ilinois...but her surgeon doesn't even have an Illinois license
to "go after". Her malpractice case was stronger here in Illinois, as
her pre-operative work was a total sham. She was "qualified" to go to
Wisconsin for surgery when the "qualifying" OD didn't even have a
topographer. But, as you know, ODs don't have "deep pockets", so the
opportunity for a financial settlement "worth suing for" wasn't there.

Once the Wisconsin lawyers get the case, then its a new ballgame. If
the poorly qualified candidate is sent from Illinois, does that absolve
the Wisconsin surgeon? How do you call an expert witness when the
"malpractice" was obviously performed across the state line, where the
courts have no jurisdiction? After Bab's pockets were picked clean by
the Illinois lawyers and the Wisconsin lawyers, the case failed to even
go to trial.
Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:
> I would be very surprised if that was the case. I think Link was just
> trying to make all LASIK look as bad as the lowest common denominator.
>
> 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, 2:41 pm

Bingo... I know the reason why.. I will put it at the end of this
post. But first, a bit more information about this mess. The Tampa
LVI set a world record for eye infections about 2 years ago. The
local news did a story on it. One of the most prominent LASIK
surgeons operates out of the Tampa area. He was included in the news
story. He said that in his 8 years of doing LASIK on tens of
thousands of people, he has not had even ONE infection of the type LVI
had.. and LVI had 23 patients infected by one doctor in ONE day. It's
obvious to anybody that the doctor at LVI was re-using the disposable
$50 ultra sharp blades used to make the flaps. These blades cost a
fortune, have their own serial numbers, and make the flap like a hot
knife going through butter. What they did is not unlike a local
phlebotomist (blood taker) who was too lazy to be bothered opening up
new needles and syringes, so he used the same needle and syringe on
many patients.
Anyway, like Berney, the current head of SE at the time was also
featured in that report and he was also based in Tampa coincidentally.
You might expect that he went on the attack after LVI.. WRONG! He
defended them by saying that infections like that are common/routine.
That is absurd! Now.. scroll down to the bottom of this post ...

=============

On 14 Sep 2005 17:36:08 -0700, "serebel" <serebel@aol.com> wrote:

>Over the last year or so, this "corp" has been labeled (rightfully so)
>as an industry pariah.
>What puzzles me is that apparently a lot of SE/LME people are former
>patients of LVI. If barbara Berney/Artistwoman is also a former patient
>of LVI, why doesn't she, via SE rail against them?
>All over both sites,(SE / LME) Alcon is crucified. To these people,
>shouldn't LVI bear the brunt of their anger? What gives?
>
>SErebel

================

Many people think that lawyers, or aspiring lawyers, are supposed to
seek out the truth. That is completely false. They are supposed to
do whatever they can to represent their client - hopefully without
lying. Take for example a case such as OJ Simpson. Simpson's own
lawyers probably thought he did it even at the time, however, their
job was to represent him. Since he didn't speak one word during his
trial, obviously they were speaking for him - that's their job - but
they are not to lie. What his lawyers did is show that the
investigators did such things as commit purgery under oath, and plant
evidence - which exonerates one from guilt in a capital crime. In
fact, even if there was a videotape of OJ killing his wife, he would
still have been found not guilty if it were proven that the
investigators committed purgery and planted evidence. Anyway, the
point is that legal people REPRESENT their clients, not the truth. And
when they offer opinions instead of facts, they might as well be
lying. Even facts can be distorted to be "lying the truth". Here is
a tiny example of that. Someone might state a fact such as "10,000
former LASIK patients died in 2004". I wouldn't doubt that is true...
and it sounds horrible... but the "fact" didn't mention that the
10,000 people died from things such as cancer, car wrecks, old age,
diabetes, heart attacks, etc. none of which had anything to do with
LASIK. People do die whether or not they had LASIK done.

The bottom line is, some people will say just about anything when a
$$$donation$$$ is made...

One more factoid. The surgeon responsible for that world record of
infections was praised highly by one of the leading SE representatives
just months before his day of infamy - which even LVI fired him for.

Ragnar

2005-09-24, 2:41 pm

I disagree.
He would not go put out $10 to have that one striped suit he owns
cleaned to go on television if he wasn't getting something out of it.

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 03:42:27 GMT, Glenn - USAEyes.org
<glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:

>I would be very surprised if that was the case. I think Link was just
>trying to make all LASIK look as bad as the lowest common denominator.
>
>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, 2:41 pm

That is not completely accurate. One reason they get off is that they
pay fines and continue to operate the same way - and pay more fines.
They essentially pay off the state govenments to let them do as they
please.
Here's an example. If speeding tickets were a nickel, one would drive
as fast as they want and not care about being ticketed. Same as with
LVI. Now here's something to consider.. why should speeding
tickets be the same for someone with no money driving a 1980 Chevette
as for someone who is a multi-millionaire driving a $200,000
sportscar? A more appropriate punishment would be to have a mandatory
court date or driving course. Why should a monetary payment be used
to change one's driving habits? Those fines mean nothing to people
with money, and are devastating to people without money.

Answer this one too... why do car drivers have to wear seat belts -
even if they have air bags - yet motorcycle riders not only don't have
seatbelts, they don't have to wear a helmet either!!! Furthermore,
why do motorcyle riders get away with no helmet, yet bicycle riders
ARE required to wear a helmet? I suggest that anybody riding a
bicycle put a small motor on their bike so they don't get fined for
not wearing a helmet. And why are police exempt from all traffic
citations (and other non-traffic infractions of the law) even when in
there own cars off duty? And that also applies to the family and
friends of cops. This is sort of like, "it's wrong to molest a
child... but if you are a priest, you won't be held accountable for
it". Ask the spouses of cops in domestic disputes how the law is
applied to them. It is common for a wife of a cop to get abused
severely and the cop gets away with it... which is why the divorce
rate for cops is just about the highest of any profession. It's
either get a divorce or take your lumps forever - it's the only remedy
left for the abused spouse.

On 15 Sep 2005 10:17:05 -0700, "doctor_my_eye@msn.com"
<doctor_my_eye@msn.com> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>Regretfully, there have been a limited number of investigations of LVI
>because they employ damn good lawyers and aggressively defend their
>business practices. In "Bab's" case, for example, the pre-operative
>examination was done in Illinois by an optometrist, then her surgery
>was done in Wisconsin. By putting the store just 12 miles from the
>state line, it became a "convenient" way to emasculate her lawsuit.
>Technically, her optometrist committed malpractice here in Winnegago
>County, Ilinois...but her surgeon doesn't even have an Illinois license
>to "go after". Her malpractice case was stronger here in Illinois, as
>her pre-operative work was a total sham. She was "qualified" to go to
>Wisconsin for surgery when the "qualifying" OD didn't even have a
>topographer. But, as you know, ODs don't have "deep pockets", so the
>opportunity for a financial settlement "worth suing for" wasn't there.
>
>Once the Wisconsin lawyers get the case, then its a new ballgame. If
>the poorly qualified candidate is sent from Illinois, does that absolve
>the Wisconsin surgeon? How do you call an expert witness when the
>"malpractice" was obviously performed across the state line, where the
>courts have no jurisdiction? After Bab's pockets were picked clean by
>the Illinois lawyers and the Wisconsin lawyers, the case failed to even
>go to trial.
>Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:

serebel

2005-09-24, 2:41 pm

I understand where the legal system fails Barbara et.al. Since they
have such big mouths about everything else, why not go after LVI on
their websites? There's something missing here.

SErebel

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2005-09-24, 2:41 pm

You miss the point of the of these groups. It is not their specific
circumstances that are problematic. It is not that surgery across
state lines is problematic. It is not that a particular provider is
problematic. It is that ALL refractive surgery and ALL providers must
somehow be problematic because they had a bad outcome. I believe that
this is what Link was trying to say when he said LVI's problems were
about the norm. IMO he ended up looking like a fool.

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, 2:41 pm

Then they won't even realize that they are just wasting their time. No
one is buying that RS in general is "bad". If they were to go after
their own particular flawed surgeries/surgeons, then people would at
least listen to them.
You are right, Link does look loke a fool.

SErebel

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2005-09-24, 2:41 pm

Add one element and you can understand some people's frustration. When
you want to go after your provider but jurisdiction gets in the way or
the informed consent covered the problem or the claim is not worth the
cost of litigation or the doctor simply is not guilty of malpractice,
it is natural to want to attack something...ANYthing.

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.

lindakendall3155@gmail.com

2005-09-24, 2:41 pm

Ragnar wrote:
> That is not completely accurate. One reason they get off is that they
> pay fines and continue to operate the same way - and pay more fines.
> They essentially pay off the state govenments to let them do as they
> please.
> Here's an example. If speeding tickets were a nickel, one would drive
> as fast as they want and not care about being ticketed. Same as with
> LVI. Now here's something to consider.. why should speeding
> tickets be the same for someone with no money driving a 1980 Chevette
> as for someone who is a multi-millionaire driving a $200,000
> sportscar? A more appropriate punishment would be to have a mandatory
> court date or driving course. Why should a monetary payment be used
> to change one's driving habits? Those fines mean nothing to people
> with money, and are devastating to people without money.
>
> Answer this one too... why do car drivers have to wear seat belts -
> even if they have air bags - yet motorcycle riders not only don't have
> seatbelts, they don't have to wear a helmet either!!! Furthermore,
> why do motorcyle riders get away with no helmet, yet bicycle riders
> ARE required to wear a helmet? I suggest that anybody riding a
> bicycle put a small motor on their bike so they don't get fined for
> not wearing a helmet. And why are police exempt from all traffic
> citations (and other non-traffic infractions of the law) even when in
> there own cars off duty? And that also applies to the family and
> friends of cops. This is sort of like, "it's wrong to molest a
> child... but if you are a priest, you won't be held accountable for
> it". Ask the spouses of cops in domestic disputes how the law is
> applied to them. It is common for a wife of a cop to get abused
> severely and the cop gets away with it... which is why the divorce
> rate for cops is just about the highest of any profession. It's
> either get a divorce or take your lumps forever - it's the only remedy
> left for the abused spouse.

You are completely wrong when it comes to domestic abuse amongst police
families. The police force is very accountable now (at least in
Australia) where we have an Ethical Standards Department. If, for
example, my husband abused me and I lodged a complaint with Ethical
Standards, he would most likely lose his job. In fact, any infringement
of the law can result in loss of employment. That being said, I will
tell you why police do not book other police or police family members
for traffic infringements. Word would very quickly spread and morale
would be affected. This does not excuse it, but that is why it happens.
These men and women rely on each other every day. If they started
booking each others family members it would get ugly. Police divorce
rates are high due to the shifts they work (all hours of the day and
night) and the fact that the stresses of the job often affect how they
relate to their families. I do not believe that violence rates are high
amongst police families as they are at the coalface of "domestics"
every day and are aware of the outcomes. My husband made the comment
recently that it is good to come home to a stable environment after
spending all day amongst the shit of society.
Linda[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
> On 15 Sep 2005 10:17:05 -0700, "doctor_my_eye@msn.com"
> <doctor_my_eye@msn.com> wrote:
>

Ragnar

2005-09-24, 2:41 pm

If not for LVI and Ladarvision, etc., the malcontents would have
nothing to complain about. They LOVE IT when problems happen. They
are like people who watch car races hoping to see someone have an
accident.

On 15 Sep 2005 17:48:15 -0700, "serebel" <serebel@aol.com> wrote:

>I understand where the legal system fails Barbara et.al. Since they
>have such big mouths about everything else, why not go after LVI on
>their websites? There's something missing here.
>
>SErebel

Ragnar

2005-09-24, 2:41 pm

The way police operate varies enormously in different countries. For
instance, in Norway, they are extremely pleasant and helpful (which
may be because Norway has just about the lowest crime rate in the
world... they even left prisoners out of jail on weekends!). In
England, the police do not carry guns - which forces them to behave in
a more civilzed manner. I believe this is also the case in Australia.
In the U.S. however, the police are often uneducated thugs who are
worse than the general population.
Things are a lot different in Australia....

On 15 Sep 2005 22:34:31 -0700, lindakendall3155@gmail.com wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>Ragnar wrote:
>
>You are completely wrong when it comes to domestic abuse amongst police
>families. The police force is very accountable now (at least in
>Australia) where we have an Ethical Standards Department. If, for
>example, my husband abused me and I lodged a complaint with Ethical
>Standards, he would most likely lose his job. In fact, any infringement
>of the law can result in loss of employment. That being said, I will
>tell you why police do not book other police or police family members
>for traffic infringements. Word would very quickly spread and morale
>would be affected. This does not excuse it, but that is why it happens.
>These men and women rely on each other every day. If they started
>booking each others family members it would get ugly. Police divorce
>rates are high due to the shifts they work (all hours of the day and
>night) and the fact that the stresses of the job often affect how they
>relate to their families. I do not believe that violence rates are high
>amongst police families as they are at the coalface of "domestics"
>every day and are aware of the outcomes. My husband made the comment
>recently that it is good to come home to a stable environment after
>spending all day amongst the shit of society.
>Linda

2005-09-24, 2:41 pm

In article <e4fmi1hl1i5u5n68569jclvl54sf8ikjfm@4ax.com>,
Ragnar <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote:

> They
> are like people who watch car races hoping to see someone have an
> accident.

Is there any other reason?
That's one reason why I read this newsgroup BTW. To see how people make
idiots of themselves--crashing into each other while they run in circles
going nowhere.

--
~RT