Lasik Eyes Surgery - New website devoted to discussion of Lasik

Author

New website devoted to discussion of Lasik

Snowman

2005-12-26, 12:59 am

I found a new website devoted to the discussion of Lasik. They want to
cover both the pros and cons and offer no judgement. I am going to
give it a try. Lets try and build a new community where we can discuss
the topic. http://www.lasikforums.com

Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.com

2005-12-26, 12:59 am

Someone already got one going here www.lasikflap.com/forum

nunayabizinez@yahoo.com

2005-12-26, 12:59 am

Someone, eh? Oh, isn't THAT just too precious?

Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.com wrote:
> Someone already got one going here www.lasikflap.com/forum

Ragnar

2005-12-26, 12:55 pm

How cute, your alias is Snowman, and the home page of that website
links to DoctorMyEye aka Ken Minarik. That website has a cartoon of a
SNOWMAN with a missing eye warning about the dangers of LASIK.

What a coincidence.

On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 18:39:43 -0800, Snowman <Snowman@snowman.com>
wrote:

>I found a new website devoted to the discussion of Lasik. They want to
>cover both the pros and cons and offer no judgement. I am going to
>give it a try. Lets try and build a new community where we can discuss
>the topic. http://www.lasikforums.com

Ragnar

2005-12-26, 12:55 pm

That website isn't exactly unbiased. It's loaded with posts from
malcontent Broken Eyes.

On 25 Dec 2005 19:25:01 -0800, "Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.com"
<administrator@lasikcourt.com> wrote:

>Someone already got one going here www.lasikflap.com/forum

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2005-12-26, 12:55 pm

It is interesting that a website that "Snowman" professes desires to
"offer no judgment" uses a proxy system to hide the owner behind the
website. What's to hide?

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.

Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.com

2005-12-26, 6:02 pm

Ragnar is an idiot.

I was the person who submitted the link to Dr. Minarik's web site, and
I don't operate LasikForums.com.

Snowman

2005-12-27, 1:04 am

The site is not operated by anyone associated with the industry. They
just wish to protect themselves from SPAMMERS and others wishing to
stop the free flow of information.

On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 18:34:45 GMT, Glenn - USAEyes.org
<glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:

>It is interesting that a website that "Snowman" professes desires to
>"offer no judgment" uses a proxy system to hide the owner behind the
>website. What's to hide?
>
>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.

Trulytelling@yahoo.com

2005-12-27, 1:04 am

Hey Snowman, not only does LASIK *increase* distortions in virgin
corneas that cannot be corrected with glasses, it also has all the
nasty complications listed in the peer-reviewed articles below. So how
could you POSSIBLY consider any PROs to LASIK and offer no judgment?
LASIK damages every eye! Where's the good?

Permanent Disease Changes Present in all Post-LASIK Corneas!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...4873&query_hl=1
Cornea. 2005 Jan;24(1):92-102.
Pathologic findings in postmortem corneas after successful laser in
situ keratomileusis.
Kramer TR, Chuckpaiwong V, Dawson DG, L'Hernault N, Grossniklaus HE,
Edelhauser HF.
Emory Eye Center, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA.
Theresa_Kramer@emoryhealthcare.org

Excerpt: Permanent pathologic changes were present in all post-LASIK
corneas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Corneal Nerve Damage Continues to Increase years 2-3 after LASIK
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...5047&query_hl=2
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004 Nov;45(11):3991-6.
Corneal reinnervation after LASIK: prospective 3-year longitudinal
study.
Calvillo MP, McLaren JW, Hodge DO, Bourne WM.
Department of Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic college of Medicine,
Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
Excerpts:
Between 2 and 3 years they [corneal nerves] decreased again, so that at
3 years the numbers remained <60% of the pre-LASIK numbers (P <0.001).
Both subbasal and stromal corneal nerves in LASIK flaps recover slowly
and do not return to preoperative densities by 3 years after LASIK. The
numbers of subbasal nerves appear to decrease between 2 and 3 years
after LASIK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LASIK Flap Only 2.4% as strong as Normal Cornea
http://www.journalofrefractivesurge...asp?thing=11320
Cohesive Tensile Strength of Human LASIK Wounds With Histologic,
Ultrastructural, and Clinical Correlations
Journal of Refractive Surgery Vol. 21 No. 5 September/October 2005
Ingo Schmack, MD; Daniel G. Dawson, MD; Bernard E. McCarey, PhD; George
O. Waring III, MD, FACS, FRCOphth; Hans E. Grossniklaus, MD; Henry F.
Edelhauser, PhD
Excerpt:
The human corneal stroma typically heals after LASIK in a limited and
incomplete fashion; this results in a weak, central and paracentral
hypocellular primitive stromal scar that averages 2.4% as strong as
normal corneal stroma.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13% of post-LASIK eyes have posterior vitreous detachment!
And 25% of high myopes have posterior vitreous detachment after LASIK!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...8256&query_hl=4
Ophthalmology. 2005 Apr;112(4):645-9.
Effect of microkeratome suction during LASIK on ocular structures.
Mirshahi A, Kohnen T.
Department of Ophthalmology, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University,
Frankfurt am
Main, Germany.
Excerpt:
Luna et al. reported the development of PVD after LASIK with an
incidence of 2% in a group of 50 patients with low myopia (1.25 to 3.5
D) and 24% in a group of 50 patients with high myopia (6 to 10 D).
Considering the data from the 100 eyes, this corresponds to 13%; thus,
there is not a great deal
of difference between our results and the data in the literature.

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2005-12-27, 1:04 am

Hmmmm. Rebecca Petris has no problem putting her name to her three
websites. She is not part of the industry. She does not want to stop
the free flow of information.

How, exactly, would acknowledging ownership of a website stop anyone
from the free flow of information, especially if that information is
objective and "without judgment"?

Acknowledging ownership of a website affects credibility and
accountability...if the owner is credible and accountable. Ah. Perhaps
I just explained why attorney Ariel Berschadsky tried for all that
time to hide his ownership of LasikInfoCenter.com.

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

2005-12-27, 1:04 am

Isn't it amazing how all those millions of patients are so satisfied
with their LASIK?

Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org

"Consider and Choose With Confidence"

Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org

http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org

I am not a doctor.

Trulytelling@yahoo.com

2005-12-27, 1:04 am

Isn't it amazing how millions of people loved smoking but were damaged
by every puff and ended up sick and dying years later?

Isn't it also amazing how many patients did well with RK yet now the
vast majority are having disastrous thinning of the peripheral cornea
resulting
in central flattening and hyperopic shift of more than one diopter?
Gosh, they did great for so many years and now their corneas are giving
out because
they had refractive surgery!

Hey, don't LASIK and PRK thin and weaken the cornea, too? By golly, yes
they DO! What can PRK and LASIK patients look forward to in a decade or
so.... deterioration of their vision AND dry eye? Because PRK and
LASIK cause WAY MORE nerve damage than RK!

Funny, I have been talking to every patient I can find who has had
refractive surgery and they always seem to have some issue with it.
Dry eye, some night vision problems, vision isn't as crisp as it used
to be... eye pain. It's always something.

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2005-12-27, 1:04 am

It is disingenuous to compare smoking to LASIK. Try to at least be
within the envelope of reasonable thinking.

Comparing LASIK to RK is just about as foolish. The science behind RK
was always controversial. So controversial that several RK surgeons
sued the AAO because of the AAO's perceived attempts to curb RK.

Thinning the cornea is exactly what PRK and LASIK does to be able to
correct refractive error. That does not mean that the cornea is made
unstable. As long as a minimum of 250 microns of cornea remains
untouched (the more the better), a healthy cornea will remain stable.
There are patients with natural corneas thinner than some patients'
corneas after PRK.

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.

Trulytelling@yahoo.com

2005-12-27, 1:04 am

Glenn, you know that patients with 300 microns or more of residual
stroma have developed ectasia.Did you not also know that Dr. Charles
Casebeer testified in a deposition that bulging of the eye is known to
occur in all LASIK patients? Did you know that some topographers with
autocall features autodiagnose nearly all patients who have had LASIK
as 'suspect keratoconus'?

Refractive surgery and smoking have a lot in common. Both were examples
of very profitable industries where the FDA failed in its duty to
protect the public health from corporate greed.

>From the deposition of J Charles Casebeer, M.D. p.69/70 3/12/04

Q, If you assume for me on the posterior float on that Orbscan that
there is red, a red spot, what is that indicative of?
Casebeer: That red spot that occurs on the posterior surface occurs in
all patients after LASIK on Orbscan.
Q. Does it indicate a thinning of the cornea?
Casebeer: Not necessarily. We thought originally that it did, but it
turns out thatthere are some people where the correlation is there, but
it doesn't mean that.
Q. And could it mean bulging of the cornea?
Casebeer: Well, that's what it's called. And in fact that word was
given to it by me. It's called "bulging" because we didn't know what to
call it to imply that there's a forward bulging, if you would, of the
back side of the cornea, but it's known to occur now in all LASIK
patients.
Q. Does that indicate that therre's a thinnning of the cornea? Is that
why --
Casebeer: Well, it's certainly resultant from the LASIK and LASIK thins
the cornea, so I guess you could make the reasonable assumption that it
is caused by that...

p. 71/72
Q. In your training and experience, have patients with 250 microns,
have they developed ectasia?
Casebeer: I don't think I've ever seen that but I have heard of it.
I've seen it reported in journals and things that people with even
250 have developed corneal ectasia.
Q. What is ectasia?
Casebeer: The word "ectasia" means bulging and thinning and what it
is, it occurs in a system that's positive pressure where the outside
resistance is inadequate to contain the inside pressure, and it's
kind of like developing a blow-out in a car, not quite so dramatic, but
it's thinning and forward bowing of the cornea or other organs that
can be ecstatic.
Q. Can that be dangerous to a patient?
Casebeer: Indeed. It's one of the most feared complications of LASIK.
Q. And why is that?
Casebeer: Well, the reason being is that probably the only treatment
for it, although there's some new stuff that may help, is to have a
corneal transplant.
Q. And you indicated to me earlier that all LASIK patients have
bulging, what we've described as the red spot on the Orbscan at the
posterior, correct?
Casebeer: To the best of my knowledge, yes.

Ragnar

2005-12-27, 1:04 am

Did you know that a higher percentage of people who never had LASIK
develop ectasia than those who did have LASIK? That is because many
people who are at risk for ecstasia are screened out from having LASIK
done to begin with.
LASIK is not a cause of ecstasia.

On 26 Dec 2005 19:16:10 -0800, Trulytelling@yahoo.com wrote:

>Glenn, you know that patients with 300 microns or more of residual
>stroma have developed ectasia.Did you not also know that Dr. Charles
>Casebeer testified in a deposition that bulging of the eye is known to
>occur in all LASIK patients? Did you know that some topographers with
>autocall features autodiagnose nearly all patients who have had LASIK
>as 'suspect keratoconus'?
>
>Refractive surgery and smoking have a lot in common. Both were examples
>of very profitable industries where the FDA failed in its duty to
>protect the public health from corporate greed.
>
>
>Q, If you assume for me on the posterior float on that Orbscan that
>there is red, a red spot, what is that indicative of?
>Casebeer: That red spot that occurs on the posterior surface occurs in
>all patients after LASIK on Orbscan.
>Q. Does it indicate a thinning of the cornea?
>Casebeer: Not necessarily. We thought originally that it did, but it
>turns out thatthere are some people where the correlation is there, but
>it doesn't mean that.
>Q. And could it mean bulging of the cornea?
>Casebeer: Well, that's what it's called. And in fact that word was
>given to it by me. It's called "bulging" because we didn't know what to
>call it to imply that there's a forward bulging, if you would, of the
>back side of the cornea, but it's known to occur now in all LASIK
>patients.
>Q. Does that indicate that therre's a thinnning of the cornea? Is that
>why --
>Casebeer: Well, it's certainly resultant from the LASIK and LASIK thins
>the cornea, so I guess you could make the reasonable assumption that it
>is caused by that...
>
>p. 71/72
>Q. In your training and experience, have patients with 250 microns,
>have they developed ectasia?
>Casebeer: I don't think I've ever seen that but I have heard of it.
>I've seen it reported in journals and things that people with even
>250 have developed corneal ectasia.
>Q. What is ectasia?
>Casebeer: The word "ectasia" means bulging and thinning and what it
>is, it occurs in a system that's positive pressure where the outside
>resistance is inadequate to contain the inside pressure, and it's
>kind of like developing a blow-out in a car, not quite so dramatic, but
>it's thinning and forward bowing of the cornea or other organs that
>can be ecstatic.
>Q. Can that be dangerous to a patient?
>Casebeer: Indeed. It's one of the most feared complications of LASIK.
>Q. And why is that?
>Casebeer: Well, the reason being is that probably the only treatment
>for it, although there's some new stuff that may help, is to have a
>corneal transplant.
>Q. And you indicated to me earlier that all LASIK patients have
>bulging, what we've described as the red spot on the Orbscan at the
>posterior, correct?
>Casebeer: To the best of my knowledge, yes.

nunayabizinez@yahoo.com

2005-12-27, 1:04 am

Wellllll, how bout that! Jes when it seemed y'all couldn't get any
stupider, y'all got stupider. LASIK sho can cause ectasia. Never had it
befo LASIK but sho nuff do now.

Mebbe if y'all could read somethin besides comic books, y'all might
learn somethin useful. Shucks, prolly even Glenn knows that LASIK can
cause ectasia!

Boy, y'all be PISS DUMB.

Ragnar wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Did you know that a higher percentage of people who never had LASIK
> develop ectasia than those who did have LASIK? That is because many
> people who are at risk for ecstasia are screened out from having LASIK
> done to begin with.
> LASIK is not a cause of ecstasia.
>
>
> On 26 Dec 2005 19:16:10 -0800, Trulytelling@yahoo.com wrote:
>

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2005-12-27, 1:04 am

Ectasia is when intraocular pressure (IOP) overcomes the ability of
the cornea to maintain its shape. The cornea is stretched beyond
normal, commonly producing a forward bulging. Ectasia can occur with
or without refractive surgery.

To minimize the probability of ectasia caused by refractive surgery, a
comprehensive preop examination would look for disease (high IOP,
keratoconus) and at least 250 microns of cornea will need to remain
untouched in a healthy cornea to maintain stability.

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

2005-12-27, 6:01 pm

That is almost correct. The ecstasia rate in post-lasik patients is
actually lower than the general population because LASIK patients are
screened first.

It is not true that 250 microns of cornea are needed to remain
untouched to maintain stability. That is the industry standard for
minimum untouched cornea. Of course there is some safety factor in
that. If someone only had 249 microns left, their eyes don't suddenly
explode.

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 05:41:37 GMT, Glenn - USAEyes.org
<glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:

>Ectasia is when intraocular pressure (IOP) overcomes the ability of
>the cornea to maintain its shape. The cornea is stretched beyond
>normal, commonly producing a forward bulging. Ectasia can occur with
>or without refractive surgery.
>
>To minimize the probability of ectasia caused by refractive surgery, a
>comprehensive preop examination would look for disease (high IOP,
>keratoconus) and at least 250 microns of cornea will need to remain
>untouched in a healthy cornea to maintain stability.
>
>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.

Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.com

2005-12-28, 1:05 am

Glenn, you know that patients with over 300 microns of cornea can
develop ectasia. What do you think regression is? It's either
epithelial hyperplasia from dry eye, or bulging from ectasia. Patients
are NOT growing extra keratocytes - that doesn't happen.

All LASIK patients eyes are bulging because their corneas have been
weakened. Some will develop progressive, dangerous ectasia fairly
soon... some will notice their vision is deteriorating years later.
Just pray they don't have an 'enhancement' and have even more tissue
removed to treat the effects of a thinning, bulging cornea.

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2005-12-28, 1:05 am

What I know, Brent Hanson of LasikFraud.com, is that this issue has
been discussed many times before and what I know has been provided
during these many previous discussions that can be seen at
http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1F92406C
This includes debunking your
"oh-my-gawd-I-can-say-all-Lasik-eyes-are-bulging-because-I-can-take-doctors'-statements-out-of-context"
hysteria.

You can bring up the same idiocy over and over, but that does not make
it any less idiotic.

It is amazing that Brent Hanson will "pray" that others don't have an
enhancement, and yet he demanded his doctors do enhancement surgery on
him when they believed that it would not be beneficial.

By the way Hanson, did that Dallas ophthalmologist that you attacked
Dr. Boothe to "protect" do enhancement surgery on you? Maybe everyone
who believes your
"oh-my-gawd-I-can-say-all-Lasik-eyes-are-bulging-because-I-can-take-doctors'-statements-out-of-context"
line should just get surgery from him.

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.

Marshall Cosme

2006-01-09, 1:02 am

http://www.321recipes.com/aspartame.html
This is a must read on eye health and maintainance. You may or may not be
affected , but you might be shocked!
Please excuse the interruption , but I thought you may be interested to know
what may be causing all kinds of health problems for yourself or for your
loved ones. I can't seem to get it through to my wife's brain about this
vital health issue, Now she is always saying she is having trouble with her
vision. Gee, I wonder why? I am so pissed off right now, I really want to
slap some sense into her. She has been feeding this poison to my four
children for years after I asked her not too, so you can see why I said what
I said previously, but I would never hit my wife. Why are people ignore what
science brings to are attention about health issues. I am really upset, but
I hope this helps you....since I can't get through to my wife of 16
years.....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Ragnar" <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:un73r1hppgftnk6cc2ce5tfh43mlt8hsu0@4ax.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> That is almost correct. The ecstasia rate in post-lasik patients is
> actually lower than the general population because LASIK patients are
> screened first.
>
> It is not true that 250 microns of cornea are needed to remain
> untouched to maintain stability. That is the industry standard for
> minimum untouched cornea. Of course there is some safety factor in
> that. If someone only had 249 microns left, their eyes don't suddenly
> explode.
>
>
> On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 05:41:37 GMT, Glenn - USAEyes.org
> <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:
>