|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > October 2006 > LASIK in the movies
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 |
LASIK in the movies
|
|
| Ragnar 2006-10-06, 4:28 pm |
| There is a new comedy coming out called "Employee of the Month"
In it, comedian Andy Dick portrays a guy with cokebottle glasses. The
main character asks him "Why don't you get laser surgery? I hear only
1 in 1500 people dont see results". Dick replies "I'm not willing to
take risks..."
Meanwhile...people repeatedly risk $1 on a 14 million to one chance of
losing their $1 in state lotteries. Going by those numbers means that
the odds of someone not getting a good lasik resullt and winning the
state lottery are about 1 in 21 billion.. which is more people than
have ever been alive in the entire history of the planet. This is
just an illustration of when risks become absurd.
That move shows how asinine the malcontents are.
| |
|
|
Ragnar wrote:
> There is a new comedy coming out called "Employee of the Month"
>
> In it, comedian Andy Dick portrays a guy with cokebottle glasses. The
> main character asks him "Why don't you get laser surgery? I hear only
> 1 in 1500 people dont see results". Dick replies "I'm not willing to
> take risks..."
>
> Meanwhile...people repeatedly risk $1 on a 14 million to one chance of
> losing their $1 in state lotteries. Going by those numbers means that
> the odds of someone not getting a good lasik resullt and winning the
> state lottery are about 1 in 21 billion.. which is more people than
> have ever been alive in the entire history of the planet. This is
> just an illustration of when risks become absurd.
>
> That move shows how asinine the malcontents are.
Funny you mention this, I spent $1 on a chance to win $14m today.
Drawing is Saturday night. If I lose, that dollar wont even be missed,
you cant get much for a buck nowdays, perhaps a bar of chocolate, a
pack of gum, a bag of potato chips, a toothbrush, a bar of soap or a
lotto ticket. If I win, me and my family will be set for life!
If you risk lasik and lose, those eyes of yours are priceless and no
amount of money can replace them. Even a corneal transplant costs $30k
and most people end up around 20/40 best corrected with strong glasses.
Most damaged lasik patients *dont* get a new cornea because it wont be
any better and youll be back in strong glasses. Those who develop
ectasia must get a new cornea. Those who end up legally blind from
lasik also get a new cornea. I know one guy who ended up with triple
vision and 20/60 BCVA after lasik. He got a new cornea in one eye and
now has a 20/30 BCVA with an RGP in that eye. The other eye still has
20/60 triple vision.
Brent Hanson himself got a cornea transplant in one eye that was so
severely damaged it was nearly useless. His other eye has a decentered
zone so that eye is useless at night but sees somewhat normal in bright
light so he left his origional cornea alone. Another reason is the
donor cornea can get rejected and you may end up blind in that eye.
People rarely get a cornea transplant in both eyes unless they have no
choice because of risk of rejection.
| |
| Ragnar 2006-10-07, 4:27 pm |
| This is too much..heheh
Mr. Ace has absolutely no concept of statistics. He is so deeply
concerned about the virtually non-existent complications of LASIK..
yet he willingly throws away his mom's money on a silly lottery that
has 1 in 14 million odds.
One other thing about the state lottery. In casinos, there is about a
98% return on every wager. Therefore, it takes 50 wagers to blow an
entire dollar. In the state lottery, their is only a 25% return in
prize money to revenue.. so 4 lotto picks is all it takes to burn a
dollar.
One other thing.. just about all the BIG winners of the state lottery
have continued their foolish ways with their money and have blown it
all after a few years.
One last thing.. even after getting that 25% payout.. there is a big
fat tax on lottow winnings... so that figure is more like 15%
In short.. Ace is rejecting the sure thing yet eagerly seeks out that
which has virtually no chance of success. What an acehole.
On 6 Oct 2006 15:50:55 -0700, "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Ragnar wrote:
>
>
>Funny you mention this, I spent $1 on a chance to win $14m today.
>Drawing is Saturday night. If I lose, that dollar wont even be missed,
>you cant get much for a buck nowdays, perhaps a bar of chocolate, a
>pack of gum, a bag of potato chips, a toothbrush, a bar of soap or a
>lotto ticket. If I win, me and my family will be set for life!
>
>
>If you risk lasik and lose, those eyes of yours are priceless and no
>amount of money can replace them. Even a corneal transplant costs $30k
>and most people end up around 20/40 best corrected with strong glasses.
>Most damaged lasik patients *dont* get a new cornea because it wont be
>any better and youll be back in strong glasses. Those who develop
>ectasia must get a new cornea. Those who end up legally blind from
>lasik also get a new cornea. I know one guy who ended up with triple
>vision and 20/60 BCVA after lasik. He got a new cornea in one eye and
>now has a 20/30 BCVA with an RGP in that eye. The other eye still has
>20/60 triple vision.
>
>Brent Hanson himself got a cornea transplant in one eye that was so
>severely damaged it was nearly useless. His other eye has a decentered
>zone so that eye is useless at night but sees somewhat normal in bright
>light so he left his origional cornea alone. Another reason is the
>donor cornea can get rejected and you may end up blind in that eye.
>People rarely get a cornea transplant in both eyes unless they have no
>choice because of risk of rejection.
| |
|
|
Ragnar wrote:
> This is too much..heheh
>
> Mr. Ace has absolutely no concept of statistics. He is so deeply
> concerned about the virtually non-existent complications of LASIK..
> yet he willingly throws away his mom's money on a silly lottery that
> has 1 in 14 million odds.
> One other thing about the state lottery. In casinos, there is about a
> 98% return on every wager. Therefore, it takes 50 wagers to blow an
> entire dollar. In the state lottery, their is only a 25% return in
> prize money to revenue.. so 4 lotto picks is all it takes to burn a
> dollar.
> One other thing.. just about all the BIG winners of the state lottery
> have continued their foolish ways with their money and have blown it
> all after a few years.
> One last thing.. even after getting that 25% payout.. there is a big
> fat tax on lottow winnings... so that figure is more like 15%
>
> In short.. Ace is rejecting the sure thing yet eagerly seeks out that
> which has virtually no chance of success. What an acehole.
The lottery has a 50% payback or 2:1 odds. Taxes must be paid no matter
where you make or win money. Casinos dont do much good, what most
people win is pocket change and more people lose than win. With the
lottery, you can win enough to be set for life. Also the money you
spend, 50% of it goes to help build new schools! I think of it as a
donation that has a chance to make me rich.
| |
| serebel 2006-10-07, 9:35 pm |
|
Ace wrote:
>
>
> The lottery has a 50% payback or 2:1 odds. Taxes must be paid no matter
> where you make or win money. Casinos dont do much good, what most
> people win is pocket change and more people lose than win. With the
> lottery, you can win enough to be set for life. Also the money you
> spend, 50% of it goes to help build new schools! I think of it as a
> donation that has a chance to make me rich.
I guess they don't teach math in your special ed class.
| |
|
|
serebel wrote:
> Ace wrote:
>
>
> I guess they don't teach math in your special ed class.
I know my math allright and I know the lottery's odds are against me. I
dont care, its fun and when/if I win, ill be really rich!
| |
| Ragnar 2006-10-08, 9:29 pm |
| Seeing without glasses is a lot of fun too Ace... and the odds of that
are nearly 100% success with LASIK.
On 7 Oct 2006 20:02:42 -0700, "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>serebel wrote:
>
>
>I know my math allright and I know the lottery's odds are against me. I
>dont care, its fun and when/if I win, ill be really rich!
| |
| Ragnar 2006-10-09, 2:34 am |
| On 7 Oct 2006 18:03:57 -0700, "serebel" <serebel@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Ace wrote:
>
>
> I guess they don't teach math in your special ed class.
But they do say YAY! a lot.
| |
| Tom Lucas 2006-10-09, 8:27 am |
| "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1160175055.200889.94760@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ragnar wrote:
>
>
> Funny you mention this, I spent $1 on a chance to win $14m today.
> Drawing is Saturday night. If I lose, that dollar wont even be missed,
> you cant get much for a buck nowdays, perhaps a bar of chocolate, a
> pack of gum, a bag of potato chips, a toothbrush, a bar of soap or a
> lotto ticket. If I win, me and my family will be set for life!
That's one thousandth of OrthoK. It has been said by someone wise "The
best way to double your money is to fold it in half and put it back in
your wallet." Don't play the lottery unless you can afford to set light
to your dollar - that chance of it spontaneously turning into millions
of dollars is about the same.
> If you risk lasik and lose, those eyes of yours are priceless and no
> amount of money can replace them. Even a corneal transplant costs $30k
> and most people end up around 20/40 best corrected with strong
> glasses.
> Most damaged lasik patients *dont* get a new cornea because it wont be
> any better and youll be back in strong glasses. Those who develop
> ectasia must get a new cornea. Those who end up legally blind from
> lasik also get a new cornea. I know one guy who ended up with triple
> vision and 20/60 BCVA after lasik. He got a new cornea in one eye and
> now has a 20/30 BCVA with an RGP in that eye. The other eye still has
> 20/60 triple vision.
Triple vision? With two eyes? Is that fish I smell?
| |
|
|
Ragnar wrote:
> Seeing without glasses is a lot of fun too Ace... and the odds of that
> are nearly 100% success with LASIK.
Thats what contacts and orthoK is for. NVI is good if you improve
significently.
Tom Lucas wrote:
> That's one thousandth of OrthoK. It has been said by someone wise "The
> best way to double your money is to fold it in half and put it back in
> your wallet." Don't play the lottery unless you can afford to set light
> to your dollar - that chance of it spontaneously turning into millions
> of dollars is about the same.
>
>
> Triple vision? With two eyes? Is that fish I smell?
I can deal with losing a dollar, the excitement of being a millionare
is worth it.
Triple vision in each eye!
http://www.afterlasik.com/Double%20Vision%202.jpg
| |
| Tom Lucas 2006-10-10, 8:32 am |
|
"Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1160424621.734324.99740@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ragnar wrote:
Which ace correctly replied to here.
> Tom Lucas wrote SOMEWHERE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT
Which Ace completed threw away usenet netiquette to respond to here.
| |
| serebel 2006-10-11, 9:30 pm |
|
Ace wrote:
>
>
> Here is an example I found. Severe ghosting, multiple images,
> blurrying. Very poor vision after lasik.
>
>
>
Very clever trick photography, that's all that crap is.
| |
|
| serebel wrote:
> Ace wrote:
>
> Very clever trick photography, that's all that crap is.
Although simulated in photoshop, it portrays the damaged vision the
lasik victim sees.
| |
| Ragnar 2006-10-12, 2:32 am |
| On 11 Oct 2006 19:40:53 -0700, "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>serebel wrote:
>
>
>Although simulated in photoshop, it portrays the damaged vision the
>lasik victim sees.
That is not true. The effects illustrated are not realistic, and they
are extremeyly exaggerated.
Let us pray that some day Ace will be free of the tortuous confines of
his glasses.
| |
| Tom Lucas 2006-10-13, 8:26 am |
| "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1160620853.467837.50600@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> serebel wrote:
>
>
> Although simulated in photoshop, it portrays the damaged vision the
> lasik victim sees.
Not very well. Why does the moon have five versions with one over two
diameters aways but the tree is only very slightly out of focus. It is
certainly difficult to accurately simulate visual disturbance in
photoshop but it is easier than that amateur effort.
I do feel for people with visual disturbances but there really are very
few of them. I wonder how many non Lasik people have similar
disturbances.
| |
| Ragnar 2006-10-13, 4:27 pm |
| Those simulations have been around for many years. They were made by
an idiot named Paul Davis. Ironically, even though they are wildly
exaggerated, they also don't even demonstarte the condition they
represent. Paul Davis's middle name must be Harold because he calls
himself PHD.
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:22:50 +0100, "Tom Lucas"
<news@REMOVE_auto_THIS_flame_TO_REPLY.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>"Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1160620853.467837.50600@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>Not very well. Why does the moon have five versions with one over two
>diameters aways but the tree is only very slightly out of focus. It is
>certainly difficult to accurately simulate visual disturbance in
>photoshop but it is easier than that amateur effort.
>
>I do feel for people with visual disturbances but there really are very
>few of them. I wonder how many non Lasik people have similar
>disturbances.
>
| |
|
| Tom Lucas wrote:
> Not very well. Why does the moon have five versions with one over two
> diameters aways but the tree is only very slightly out of focus. It is
> certainly difficult to accurately simulate visual disturbance in
> photoshop but it is easier than that amateur effort.
>
> I do feel for people with visual disturbances but there really are very
> few of them. I wonder how many non Lasik people have similar
> disturbances.
Because a different part of the cornea may distort differently and
different lights may have different effects. Even the distance may
matter. I have read tons of bad lasik stories and one guy said things
looked normal at 20 feet away but the further he went, the more
distorted they would be. At like 50 feet things were doubled, at 100+
feet away, he saw tripling!
I know another person who saw the green light with huge halos but the
red light looked normal and the yellow slight halos. I believe the
photo is accurate. Maybe you dont but either way the photo is a wakeup
call. Hopefully your lasik vision holds. How well are you seeing?
| |
| Ragnar 2006-10-14, 4:28 pm |
| Ace.. you have read tons of bullshit from Burch's website.
On 13 Oct 2006 19:36:41 -0700, "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Tom Lucas wrote:
>
>
>
>Because a different part of the cornea may distort differently and
>different lights may have different effects. Even the distance may
>matter. I have read tons of bad lasik stories and one guy said things
>looked normal at 20 feet away but the further he went, the more
>distorted they would be. At like 50 feet things were doubled, at 100+
>feet away, he saw tripling!
>I know another person who saw the green light with huge halos but the
>red light looked normal and the yellow slight halos. I believe the
>photo is accurate. Maybe you dont but either way the photo is a wakeup
>call. Hopefully your lasik vision holds. How well are you seeing?
|
| |
|
|