|
| MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.4 (PPC Mac OS X)
Message-ID: <RTMD24-7341FB.12460003012006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>
Lines: 70
NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.86.56.207
X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net
X-Trace: newssvr21.news.prodigy.com 1136310360 ST000 69.86.56.207 (Tue, 03 Jan 2006 12:46:00 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 12:46:00 EST
Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
X-UserInfo1: S[OYRWSEYJRYSTD[ABCBNWX@RJ_XPDLMN@GZ_GYO^BVNDQUBLNTC@AWZWDXZXQ[K\FFSKCVM@F_N_DOBWVWG__LG@VVOIPLIGX\\BU_B@\P\PFX\B[APHTWAHDCKJF^NHD[YJAZMCY_CWG[SX\Y]^KC\HSZRWSWKGAY_PC[BQ[BXAS\F\\@DMTLFZFUE@\VL
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 17:46:00 GMT
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.lasik-eyes:50073
In article <1136263269.370416.202360@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Lasik never increases quality of vision. As "Eye" put it, the challenge
> is find a SINGLE case where someone with normal virgin eyes experienced
> an actual improvement in quality of vision. It would be big news indeed
> when that happens.
Well call the press. I'll let you take credit for the scoop. Of course,
"Eye" is the expert on how I see.
> Everyone doesnt realize they need glasses till they find out they do. I
> was 12 when this happened. Its normal.
Everyone??? That's not true. May be true for you. This is where you and
your buddy "Eye" are just plain wrong. You just cannot extrapolate from
your personal experience and make it universal.
>I have an appointment for an eye
> exam tomorrow morning.
Will wonders never cease.
> you "know" so many people who've had LASIK problems"
>
> more have complications.
Extraordinary. You know thousands of people with LASIK problems? That
truly amazing! And at such a tender age too. You must be eligible for
some sort of high honor knowing so many people. Are you on a first name
basis with each and every one? Are their names, "Eye" "Bill" Tabby"
"Truly Telling" to name a "few"?
> With orthoK I know maybe 2 people with
> complications and only 50 complications have been recorded with orthoK.
Really, that's an amazing figure. Where's that published? That's great
you have access to such definitive figures.
Of course the main advantage of OK is that you just stop when the side
effects and complications become a problem. But if it's unbearable to
follow through, what benefits are you getting?
> This makes orthoK like 500 times safer than lasik. Good enough for me.
And just how many people do you think have had OK compared to LASIK? If
you found 100 people with LASIK and 3 had complications, and 10 with OK
and 3 had complications, which has the better odds?
>
>
> Youll hear my glowing reports all right. You make contact lenses sound
> like such hard business but its very, very simple in reality. I pop in
> the orthoK lenses at night, sleep right thru them where time flies by
> and wake up, blink a few times, pop the lenses out into the cleaning
> solution and let them disinfect all day and come night, I insert the
> lenses, rinse and repeat. Its as simple and routine as washing your
> face or brushing your hair. I also will wake up without thinking about
> my eyes except the few seconds it takes to pop my lenses out. orthoK
> couldnt be any simplier without the risks of lasik 
Your fantasy life is so rich. Have you ever worn contacts? RGPs? Have
you ever slept away from your parents' house and have to travel with all
your supplies? Have you ever peeled contacts off your eyeballs? You know
you have to go for multiple fitting visits for OK. Can you really manage
that, esp. since you don't like listening to eye care professionals?
Now, what I really want to know is if this fantasy scenario is based on
advertisements or real life experience.
> I became rational
in a fantastical sort of way.
--
~RT
|
|