|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > October 2006 > About the frequent posters
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 |
About the frequent posters
|
|
|
| Many of people who visit and read the posts in this group are
contemplating LASIK and are looking for advice or basing their decision
on real experiences. I have noticed that there are several frequent
posters here. Some have a very balanced opinion of LASIK, others are
very polarized, either pro or con.
I would like to use this thread for these frequent posters to identify
themselves and perhaps discuss their background or reasons which may
shed light as to why they are so polarized in their views (eg. you
actually had LASIK and had a long term complication). Also, long time
readers of this group might help also.
I hope that in doing this, it can help new readers/visitors develop a
more accurate and informed choice whether or not to proceed with LASIK.
Who's posts should we listen to? Who's posts should we ignore?
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2006-10-08, 9:29 pm |
| I am the Executive Director and founder of the Council for Refractive
Surgery Quality Assurance, a nonprofit nongovernmental patient
advocacy organization that certifies doctors who provide Lasik and
similar eye surgery to reduce the need for corrective lenses. I am not
a physician, however I have and continue to do extensive research on
the subject.
I had monovision Photorefractive Keratectomy (PRK) within the last
year with satisfactory result after an extended healing period.
I am not exactly a "regular" in this newsgroup any longer because of
consistent and vicious attacks on me and the organization I represent,
however I do provide information on occasion. The majority of my posts
are at our http://www.USAEyes.org/Ask-Lasik-Expert forum or the Ask
Lasik Docs forum at the website of William Trattler, MD.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
Patient Advocacy Surgeon Certification
"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.
Copyright 2006
All Rights Reserved
| |
| Tom Lucas 2006-10-09, 8:27 am |
| "fliss" <dr_fling@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160347366.848192.320750@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Many of people who visit and read the posts in this group are
> contemplating LASIK and are looking for advice or basing their
> decision
> on real experiences. I have noticed that there are several frequent
> posters here. Some have a very balanced opinion of LASIK, others are
> very polarized, either pro or con.
>
> I would like to use this thread for these frequent posters to identify
> themselves and perhaps discuss their background or reasons which may
> shed light as to why they are so polarized in their views (eg. you
> actually had LASIK and had a long term complication). Also, long time
> readers of this group might help also.
>
> I hope that in doing this, it can help new readers/visitors develop a
> more accurate and informed choice whether or not to proceed with
> LASIK.
> Who's posts should we listen to? Who's posts should we ignore?
I've been posting since about April and I had Lasik performed at the end
of May. This procedure left me undercorrected so I had an enhancement 10
days ago which, so far, has been successful.
I try to be civil and I don't believe I've been offensive to anyone but
I will admit to being curt with some. I also try to keep a balanced view
but I do have a bias toward being pro-Lasik despite having had a less
than ideal experience with it.
My opinion is influenced chiefly by the good results I had with Lasik -
even when I was undercorrected a cheap pair of glasses effectively
corrected this. Now I've had me enhancement then I can see well day or
night and I am happy with my vision. However, I have had bad experiences
too and the original surgery was very traumatic for me and I was left
undercorrected from it. I also had to wait a month before I could get
glasses during which time I could not drive. I have also been left with
a microstriae (small flap wrinkle) after the enhancement which does not
affect vision and should heal but it is a complication nonetheless.
Overall I am in favour of the surgery but would advise new patients to
read up thoroughly but don't let it scare you. Glenn's site is very good
and there are some others around which are also good. Be sure to be well
read before venturing into the LasikFlap site because, although there is
some good information there, there is also a lot of bad and potential
patients should have a good grasp of the principles before entering to
enable them to sort the wheat from the chaff.
One more point: I went to a high volume Lasik mill (Optical Express)
which was very affordable but lacked the patient care I'd have liked. It
wasn't bad enough for me to have paid double (or triple) for a small
clinic but it was a major factor in the bad experiences I had from
Lasik.
| |
| southeasteyecare@hotmail.com 2006-10-09, 4:30 pm |
| Tom,
Tom, we would love an example of some 'bad information' on the flap.
Please give us a link to some bad information and explain why you think
the information is 'bad'. If you want a grasp of the principles of
LASIK, the FLAP has the most up-to-date peer reveiwed literature
section. The best overall summary of LASIK complications and how and
why they arise is likely The LASIK Report at http://thelasikreport.com
, and everyone who is contemplating surgery should read this report. It
has 40 references written by some of the top research institutions and
top surgeons in the country. You would receive tips on managing your
future eye care from this document.
Obtaining your information about LASIK from someone who makes a profit
from the industry is dangerous. Giving information about a bad outcome
to anyone who makes a profit from the LASIK industry (aside from your
LASIK malpractice attorney) is even more dangerous. Seriously, folks -
Glenn Hagele's is just one guy, a non-doctor, who operates a fee-based
certification mill out of his private home. He has a few websites.
Strangely, some refractive surgeons actually pay money for Glenn's
certifications maybe thirty some surgeons out of a total of more than
17,000 in the US. Is it a coincidence that several of these surgeons'
practices generated litigation and scandal?
Glenn Hagele of CRSQA/USAeyes has a 'hate site' where he harrasses
damaged LASIK patients. Glenn Hagele's hate site content falls neatly
into two categories the IRRELEVENT, and the INNACURATE content. Glenn
Hagele of CRSQA/USAeyes has a long history of fairly brutal harrassment
of damaged LASIK patients - he perceives them to be bad for business I
would suppose.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2006-10-09, 4:30 pm |
| As I said, "I am not exactly a "regular" in this newsgroup any longer
because of consistent and vicious attacks on me and the organization I
represent..."
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
Patient Advocacy Surgeon Certification
"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.
Copyright 2006
All Rights Reserved
| |
| Tom Lucas 2006-10-09, 4:30 pm |
| <southeasteyecare@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160406320.777008.208610@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Tom,
>
> Tom, we would love an example of some 'bad information' on the flap.
> Please give us a link to some bad information and explain why you
> think
> the information is 'bad'.
Assuming that the many many non-attributed reports that Ace post are
normally derived from the flap then I have repeatedly pointed out the
inconsistencies in many of them. The thread titled "Possible LASIK
compications such as ecstasia, poor night vision, dry eyes, below 20/20
vision (impaired)" is an example of one such post. If it turns out that
Ace didn't get that from the flap then I can provide several others.
> If you want a grasp of the principles of
> LASIK, the FLAP has the most up-to-date peer reveiwed literature
> section. The best overall summary of LASIK complications and how and
> why they arise is likely The LASIK Report at http://thelasikreport.com
> , and everyone who is contemplating surgery should read this report.
> It
> has 40 references written by some of the top research institutions and
> top surgeons in the country. You would receive tips on managing your
> future eye care from this document.
One day I will be able to spend some time creating an accompanying
document for this which removes any embelishments and leaves only the
facts. I suspect it will fit onto a single page. I did post a reply a
few months back addressing a few of the problems with your report but I
forget what it was I was replying to.
Perhaps suprisingly to some, I do recommend people read the report but
not until they are well read from many other sources. It useful as an
absolute worst case example for a prospective patient and if they are
not frightened off by it then they know enough to undergo the procedure.
> Obtaining your information about LASIK from someone who makes a profit
> from the industry is dangerous. Giving information about a bad outcome
> to anyone who makes a profit from the LASIK industry (aside from your
> LASIK malpractice attorney) is even more dangerous. Seriously, folks -
> Glenn Hagele's is just one guy, a non-doctor, who operates a fee-based
> certification mill out of his private home. He has a few websites.
> Strangely, some refractive surgeons actually pay money for Glenn's
> certifications maybe thirty some surgeons out of a total of more than
> 17,000 in the US. Is it a coincidence that several of these surgeons'
> practices generated litigation and scandal?
A large number of surgeons end up in court, it doesn't mean they have
done anything wrong. The US is so litigation hungry that a surgeon could
be sued for just about anything and I doubt any surgeons - opthalmic or
otherwise - manage an entire career without lining a lawyers pocket at
some point. There's also nothing wrong with being funded by the Lasik
industry - Glenn is up front about it and sees no reason to hide. There
is no evidence that it has affected his objectivity.
> Glenn Hagele of CRSQA/USAeyes has a 'hate site' where he harrasses
> damaged LASIK patients. Glenn Hagele's hate site content falls neatly
> into two categories the IRRELEVENT, and the INNACURATE content. Glenn
> Hagele of CRSQA/USAeyes has a long history of fairly brutal
> harrassment
> of damaged LASIK patients - he perceives them to be bad for business I
> would suppose.
Glenn will defend himself but seeing as I'm already replying then I
might as well make sure that the record will show. He does not operate a
hate site. He does not harass Lasik patients either although he may have
been forced into a heated debate with someone trying to destroy his good
name and his family's livelihood. The fact that those detracts are lasik
patients is irrelevent and they can't call it an attack because they
provoked it.
Besides normal people, such as Glenn, don't pursue hate campaigns
because it is abnormal behaviour. To develop an obsession as consuming
as yourself and Hanson's is mystifying to everyone else on earth who
cannot understand your actions because we don't think that way - neither
does Glenn. There are a handful people in the world who would understand
the motivations of that crazy guy who shot those Amish kids recently but
normal people cannot. This is the same sort of concept and people who
pursue vendettas see them everywhere because they can't see any other
way of dealing with a problem. What you have is unhealthy and you should
take a long look at what you and Hanson have been doing and really think
about whether your behaviour is even sane let alone justified.
| |
|
| So far, Glenn has been pretty upfront about who he is and what he
represents. I believe that he does provide quite a balanced view from
what I have read so far. I do not get the impression that he is super
pro-LASIK and has always stated that the patient should make the
decision his/herself in collaboration with their doctor. Other
detractors who have posted on this thread have yet to identify
themselves and have only hurled insults at others. Why don't you
identify yourselves, your credentials and your motives? Not doing so
speaks volumes about your credibility.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2006-10-09, 4:30 pm |
| Thank you for your kind words.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
Patient Advocacy Surgeon Certification
"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.
Copyright 2006
All Rights Reserved
| |
| Ragnar 2006-10-09, 4:30 pm |
| I must give you credit for being honest in your post below about one
thing.. you would LOVE an example of some "bad information"
You miserable insects just love negative garbage.. you don't want to
hear anything but garbage.. you are like flies feasting on a pile of
poo.
On 9 Oct 2006 08:05:20 -0700, southeasteyecare@hotmail.com wrote:
>Tom,
>
>Tom, we would love an example of some 'bad information' on the flap.
| |
| doctor_my_eye@msn.com 2006-10-12, 9:29 pm |
| Yes, Ragnar, you are the smelling pile of dogshit that we love to feast
on. I'll take the bait on this one. My name is Dr Ken Minarik and I
am a Doctor of Optometry, licensed to practice in Pennsylvania and
Illinois. During the early 1990's I served as the Director of
Optometric Services for a large ophthalmology practice, where I
provided post-operative care for about 11,000 RK cases. I left the
field of refractive surgery when LASIK started to get big. I now have
a large practice that serves the Northern Illinois areas from the
western suburbs of Chicago to the Iowa and Wisconsin borders. I have
been in practice for 25 years, and I intend to do this for about 20
more. I have also been involved in the consumer awareness movement
that warns people about the dangers of refractive surgery. 5% of
refractive surgery patients end up miserable...and 5% of a big number
is still a big number.
2 million LASIKs in the past year means that there are a hundred
thousand miserable people out there. Speaking for the 1.9 million
happy patients are Ragnar and SERebel, a/k/a
Beavis and Butthead. We in the "movement" speak up for the 100000
people who would love to shoot Ragnar in the head and dance at SERebels
funeral.
Ragnar wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> I must give you credit for being honest in your post below about one
> thing.. you would LOVE an example of some "bad information"
>
> You miserable insects just love negative garbage.. you don't want to
> hear anything but garbage.. you are like flies feasting on a pile of
> poo.
>
> On 9 Oct 2006 08:05:20 -0700, southeasteyecare@hotmail.com wrote:
>
| |
| serebel 2006-10-12, 9:29 pm |
|
doctor_my_eye@msn.com wrote:
> Yes, Ragnar, you are the smelling pile of dogshit that we love to feast
> on. I'll take the bait on this one.
Is that how you got so fat?
> My name is Dr Ken Minarik and I
> am a Doctor of Optometry, licensed to practice in Pennsylvania and
> Illinois. During the early 1990's I served as the Director of
> Optometric Services for a large ophthalmology practice, where I
> provided post-operative care for about 11,000 RK cases.
Who cares?
> I left the
> field of refractive surgery when LASIK started to get big.
You became redundant.
> I have also been involved in the consumer awareness movement
> that warns people about the dangers of refractive surgery.
To protect your business.
> thousand miserable people out there. Speaking for the 1.9 million
> happy patients are Ragnar and SERebel, a/k/a
> Beavis and Butthead. We in the "movement" speak up for the 100000
> people who would love to shoot Ragnar in the head and dance at SERebels
> funeral.
Blah, blah, your "movement" consists of a few lunatics.
| |
| Ragnar 2006-10-13, 2:29 am |
| On 12 Oct 2006 17:25:02 -0700, "serebel" <serebel@aol.com> wrote:
>
>doctor_my_eye@msn.com wrote:
>
>
> Is that how you got so fat?
>
>
>
>
>Who cares?
>
>
>
>
>You became redundant.
>
>
>
>
> To protect your business.
>
>
>
> Blah, blah, your "movement" consists of a few lunatics.
That reminds me of something. One of the SE posters.. I think "Broken
Eyes?" I'm not sure. Anyway.. it was one of the major malcontents
mentioned they went to Dr. Minarik for some special custom made
lenses... and thanked hiim even thought they did NOT help. Now that
is a true malcontent! They are happy even when getting screwed.
| |
|
|
Ragnar wrote:
> That reminds me of something. One of the SE posters.. I think "Broken
> Eyes?" I'm not sure. Anyway.. it was one of the major malcontents
> mentioned they went to Dr. Minarik for some special custom made
> lenses... and thanked hiim even thought they did NOT help. Now that
> is a true malcontent! They are happy even when getting screwed.
Sometimes theres just no help for lasik victims. RGPs are hit or miss,
sometimes they give normal vision to damaged lasik eyes, other times
they help only a little or not at all. Many lasik victims cant tolerate
RGPs anyway so it becomes a moot point.
| |
| Tom Lucas 2006-10-13, 8:26 am |
| <doctor_my_eye@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1160690061.199193.90440@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Yes, Ragnar, you are the smelling pile of dogshit that we love to
> feast
> on. I'll take the bait on this one. My name is Dr Ken Minarik and I
> am a Doctor of Optometry, licensed to practice in Pennsylvania and
> Illinois.
From this it would be reasonable to assume that you are an educated and
intelligent person which is why I find it suprising that you would risk
your professional standing with venomous attacks here. You must surely
realise that, with the advent of Google groups, everything said in these
forums is logged forever and is instantly retrievable from a simple
search by anyone.
All I can say is that I hope your reputation as a doctor continues to
generate your income because your image on-line is not one I would
expect from someone in your position and I can't see you developing a
lot of business on the strength of it.
| |
| Ragnar 2006-10-13, 4:27 pm |
| His own wife has told Minarik to put a cork in it. He can't resist.
His delusions of success are a figment of his imagination. To begin
with, people do not become optometrists to get rich. It is perhaps
the least rewarding of all the types of doctors there are. Nobody
goes to college with the goal of becoming an optometrist. They
typically go to college with aspirations of becoming a surgeon but
fail to acheive that because of time and/or money and/or lack of
money. Optometry is a last choice.
My optometrist is definitely smart enough to be a surgeon, but he had
ot finance his entire education with jobs and loans. If he continued
to pursue being a medical doctor with loans, he would never finish
paying off those loans. His daddy didn't help with his education at
all.
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:37:57 +0100, "Tom Lucas"
<news@REMOVE_auto_THIS_flame_TO_REPLY.clara.co.uk> wrote:
><doctor_my_eye@msn.com> wrote in message
>news:1160690061.199193.90440@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>From this it would be reasonable to assume that you are an educated and
>intelligent person which is why I find it suprising that you would risk
>your professional standing with venomous attacks here. You must surely
>realise that, with the advent of Google groups, everything said in these
>forums is logged forever and is instantly retrievable from a simple
>search by anyone.
>
>All I can say is that I hope your reputation as a doctor continues to
>generate your income because your image on-line is not one I would
>expect from someone in your position and I can't see you developing a
>lot of business on the strength of it.
>
| |
| Tom Lucas 2006-10-13, 4:27 pm |
| "Ragnar" <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:k99vi2dlj61shf4710gvhe2f0ojr2c2sre@4ax.com...
> His own wife has told Minarik to put a cork in it. He can't resist.
> His delusions of success are a figment of his imagination.
To be fair, by most measures of the word he is a success. He's in a
good, well paid job which gives satisfaction if you like helping people.
He is married and is apparently pleased with his life choices or at
least does not complain about them.
> To begin
> with, people do not become optometrists to get rich. It is perhaps
> the least rewarding of all the types of doctors there are.
I could see it being amongst the more monotonous but I'm sure it is
rewarding because the results are usually instant and with a very high
success rate. In twenty minutes work you can fit a kid for glasses and
cure all their headaches and eye strain. I definitely prefer it to
dentristry or chiropody. And how many proctologists look forward to
going into work?
> Nobody
> goes to college with the goal of becoming an optometrist. They
> typically go to college with aspirations of becoming a surgeon but
> fail to acheive that because of time and/or money and/or lack of
> money. Optometry is a last choice.
Not in my experience. I shared a flat with some at university and they
mostly have optometry as their goal right from the beginning. Perhaps
things are different in the US.
> My optometrist is definitely smart enough to be a surgeon, but he had
> ot finance his entire education with jobs and loans. If he continued
> to pursue being a medical doctor with loans, he would never finish
> paying off those loans. His daddy didn't help with his education at
> all.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:37:57 +0100, "Tom Lucas"
> <news@REMOVE_auto_THIS_flame_TO_REPLY.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>
| |
| doctor_my_eye@msn.com 2006-10-14, 4:28 pm |
| Tom, you seem like a reasonable man, and I have appreciated reading
many of your posts. I would never consider addressing you, or any
reasonable human being like you, with the venom that I spew at Ragnar.
Ragnar is an unemployed computer programmer named Christopher Roiland,
who lives somewhere in the Tampa area. During the past 4 years I have
seen him present a constant stream of lies and poison. He took Ron
Link, one of the most admirable men I have ever met, and baited and
taunted him enough to drive him to hire a lawyer to go after him. I
have consulted with refractive surgery patients who are so offended by
every aspect of this wreck of a human being that they have considered
ending their own lives after facing the horrors of a regular reaming
from Ragnar. He has no medical degree, he has no background in physics
or optics..but on a regular basis he spews out garbage about topics he
knows nothing about. Let's take that line of bullshit about no one
"wants" to be an optometrist.
I graduated from high school at age 16, had by bachelors at 19 and my
Doctorate by age 23.
I could have gone to any medical school in the country, but I wanted to
be an optometrist since I was 12 years old. Period. An optometrist
never has to get out of bed at 3AM to deliver babies or take call at a
hospital. I have a wonderful career and I am surrounded by a nuturing
family and large practice that treat me with dignity and respect.
Christopher Roiland is an uncontrolled XXXXXXX, and I have elected to
stoop down to his level, on occasion, to remind him that there are a
few people left in this world who will stand up and ridicule him in the
same way he has ridiculed the good and honest people who have taken
time to form a movement to warn the public about the dangers of
refractive surgery.
I could cite a journal article to refute just about any point that Rags
makes, but then he has the arrogant stupidity to dismiss journal
articles as "written by students." Once again, a total lie, and total
bullshit.
Take whatever position you like in the refractive surgery debate, but
don't expect me to be civil with this Roiland XXXXXXX who has no reason
to live.
Tom Lucas wrote:
> <doctor_my_eye@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:1160690061.199193.90440@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> From this it would be reasonable to assume that you are an educated and
> intelligent person which is why I find it suprising that you would risk
> your professional standing with venomous attacks here. You must surely
> realise that, with the advent of Google groups, everything said in these
> forums is logged forever and is instantly retrievable from a simple
> search by anyone.
>
> All I can say is that I hope your reputation as a doctor continues to
> generate your income because your image on-line is not one I would
> expect from someone in your position and I can't see you developing a
> lot of business on the strength of it.
| |
| Ragnar 2006-10-14, 4:28 pm |
| Minarik....
Tom Lucas is no idiot. He can see for himself what a jerk you are.
For those who don't know already.. Minarik's modus operandi is to
frighten post lasik patients into thinking they require his
innefective treatments. His sole motivation seems to be $$$.
He was even banned from the Surgical Eyes website by their board of
directors for being too negative even for THEM!
On 14 Oct 2006 08:47:50 -0700, "doctor_my_eye@msn.com"
<doctor_my_eye@msn.com> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Tom, you seem like a reasonable man, and I have appreciated reading
>many of your posts. I would never consider addressing you, or any
>reasonable human being like you, with the venom that I spew at Ragnar.
>
>Ragnar is an unemployed computer programmer named Christopher Roiland,
>who lives somewhere in the Tampa area. During the past 4 years I have
>seen him present a constant stream of lies and poison. He took Ron
>Link, one of the most admirable men I have ever met, and baited and
>taunted him enough to drive him to hire a lawyer to go after him. I
>have consulted with refractive surgery patients who are so offended by
>every aspect of this wreck of a human being that they have considered
>ending their own lives after facing the horrors of a regular reaming
>from Ragnar. He has no medical degree, he has no background in physics
>or optics..but on a regular basis he spews out garbage about topics he
>knows nothing about. Let's take that line of bullshit about no one
>"wants" to be an optometrist.
>I graduated from high school at age 16, had by bachelors at 19 and my
>Doctorate by age 23.
>I could have gone to any medical school in the country, but I wanted to
>be an optometrist since I was 12 years old. Period. An optometrist
>never has to get out of bed at 3AM to deliver babies or take call at a
>hospital. I have a wonderful career and I am surrounded by a nuturing
>family and large practice that treat me with dignity and respect.
>
>Christopher Roiland is an uncontrolled XXXXXXX, and I have elected to
>stoop down to his level, on occasion, to remind him that there are a
>few people left in this world who will stand up and ridicule him in the
>same way he has ridiculed the good and honest people who have taken
>time to form a movement to warn the public about the dangers of
>refractive surgery.
>I could cite a journal article to refute just about any point that Rags
>makes, but then he has the arrogant stupidity to dismiss journal
>articles as "written by students." Once again, a total lie, and total
>bullshit.
>
>Take whatever position you like in the refractive surgery debate, but
>don't expect me to be civil with this Roiland XXXXXXX who has no reason
>to live.
>Tom Lucas wrote:
| |
| serebel 2006-10-14, 9:34 pm |
|
Ragnar wrote:
>
> For those who don't know already.. Minarik's modus operandi is to
> frighten post lasik patients into thinking they require his
> innefective treatments. His sole motivation seems to be $$$.
> He was even banned from the Surgical Eyes website by their board of
> directors for being too negative even for THEM!
>
>
Pretty iromic, Minarik is banned from SE but I'm not.
| |
|
| A brief summary.
Ok.. so far this is the impression/information that I have about some
of the "frequent" posters (based on what they written). Please correct
me if I'm wrong.
1. Keeping things real, presenting the facts as neutrally as possible
- possibly pro-LASIK:
-Glenn Hagele
-Tom Lucas
2. Presenting facts against LASIK; in "the movement". Professional
credentials (however credibility is slandered by pro-LASIK camp).
-Dr. Minarik
3. Anti-LASIK at all costs; no professional credentials re: LASIK:
-Ace
4. Pro-LASIK at all costs; no professional credentials re: LASIK:
-Ragnar
-Serebel
Did I miss anyone? (No name calling or insults please, just fortify
your position with the facts or your personal experience).
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2006-10-15, 4:28 pm |
| Lauranell Burch, who uses many aliases.
Brent Hanson
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
Patient Advocacy Surgeon Certification
"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.
Copyright 2006
All Rights Reserved
| |
| Ragnar 2006-10-15, 4:28 pm |
| Two big mastakes below:
I'm certainly not pro-lasik at all costs. There are a lot of people
who should not have lasik: too young, too old, very mild myopes,
malcontents (can't be satisfied), people with unrealistic
expectations.
Other mistake is the pat on the back you gave to Minarik. Minarik is
a disgrace to all optometrists - and a predator upon post refractive
surgery patients. It doesn't take a whole lot of reading of his posts
to realize that he is not playing with a full deck. You might want to
think of him as a Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde. As for being slandered,
he is the ONLY doctor who was ever banned from the Surgical Eyes
website by his own peers. The reason for that is that he made them
all look bad with his crazy rants.
On 15 Oct 2006 02:30:03 -0700, "fliss" <dr_fling@hotmail.com> wrote:
>A brief summary.
>
>Ok.. so far this is the impression/information that I have about some
>of the "frequent" posters (based on what they written). Please correct
>me if I'm wrong.
>
>1. Keeping things real, presenting the facts as neutrally as possible
>- possibly pro-LASIK:
> -Glenn Hagele
> -Tom Lucas
>
>2. Presenting facts against LASIK; in "the movement". Professional
>credentials (however credibility is slandered by pro-LASIK camp).
> -Dr. Minarik
>
>3. Anti-LASIK at all costs; no professional credentials re: LASIK:
> -Ace
>
>4. Pro-LASIK at all costs; no professional credentials re: LASIK:
> -Ragnar
> -Serebel
>
>Did I miss anyone? (No name calling or insults please, just fortify
>your position with the facts or your personal experience).
| |
| doctor_my_eye@msn.com 2006-10-15, 9:33 pm |
| I was the second optometrist "thrown off" of SE, Leukoma was first.
When the "new guard" of Berney and Hartzok took over SE they hoped to
take a more "moderate" position in the battle against refractive
surgery problems. They promptly went bankrupt.
SE also "banned" its creator, Ron Link, who continues to be one of the
most admirable human beings you will ever meet. If its true that
SERebel is still "allowed" on SE, he must enjoy talking to himself.
Ragnar wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Two big mastakes below:
> I'm certainly not pro-lasik at all costs. There are a lot of people
> who should not have lasik: too young, too old, very mild myopes,
> malcontents (can't be satisfied), people with unrealistic
> expectations.
> Other mistake is the pat on the back you gave to Minarik. Minarik is
> a disgrace to all optometrists - and a predator upon post refractive
> surgery patients. It doesn't take a whole lot of reading of his posts
> to realize that he is not playing with a full deck. You might want to
> think of him as a Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde. As for being slandered,
> he is the ONLY doctor who was ever banned from the Surgical Eyes
> website by his own peers. The reason for that is that he made them
> all look bad with his crazy rants.
>
>
> On 15 Oct 2006 02:30:03 -0700, "fliss" <dr_fling@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
| |
| Ragnar 2006-10-15, 9:33 pm |
| That is not true.. you were the only one banned from SE. Leudoma
requested that his posts be removed.
BTW.. Berney is a certified looney. I believe Berney was a patient of
yours also. You malcontent lunatics tend to cannibalize each other.
A certain malcontent looney essetially sued himself to try and collect
$40,000.00 - but that is another story. That same looney swindled
Hanson out of at least $15,000.00
On 15 Oct 2006 15:38:23 -0700, "doctor_my_eye@msn.com"
<doctor_my_eye@msn.com> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>I was the second optometrist "thrown off" of SE, Leukoma was first.
>When the "new guard" of Berney and Hartzok took over SE they hoped to
>take a more "moderate" position in the battle against refractive
>surgery problems. They promptly went bankrupt.
>SE also "banned" its creator, Ron Link, who continues to be one of the
>most admirable human beings you will ever meet. If its true that
>SERebel is still "allowed" on SE, he must enjoy talking to himself.
>Ragnar wrote:
| |
|
| c'mon... you have got to share that story.
"Ragnar" <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:lcf5j2htrp3nvg7navb8g8egu6sehnpgcj@4ax.com...
> That is not true.. you were the only one banned from SE. Leudoma
> requested that his posts be removed.
>
> BTW.. Berney is a certified looney. I believe Berney was a patient of
> yours also. You malcontent lunatics tend to cannibalize each other.
>
> A certain malcontent looney essetially sued himself to try and collect
> $40,000.00 - but that is another story. That same looney swindled
> Hanson out of at least $15,000.00
>
SNIP
| |
| Ragnar 2006-10-16, 2:31 am |
| The primary person involved in those stories has already had his world
crumble around him. We shouldn't feel too bad for him though.. he
played every side against the middle and wound up destroying his
credibility with everyone including the malcontents. The last pal he
has is probably Minarik.
I don't think it is helpful to anyone to stomp on the vanquished.
These malcontents eventually destroy themselves with their own
garbage. The most unfortunate incident was when one (now retired)
optometrist literally scared a patent of his to death with his failed
contact lens therapy. But again.. the man retired and has learned to
watch what he says.. so no point in revisiting that drama.
Basically.. the malcontents games have resulted in losing jobs for
themselves, one death, several bankruptcies, a few broken marriages, a
prison sentence, and not a single victory in court.
What is a shame is that certain surgeons should be sued for the way
they practice medicine. If the malcontents had any sense, they would
have tried to have LVI shut down. LVI has gone bankrupt twice in the
past 7 years.. but won't go away.. Bankruptcy is a way of avoiding
liability.
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 01:27:09 GMT, "Scott" <moe__green@msn.com> wrote:
>c'mon... you have got to share that story.
>
>"Ragnar" <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:lcf5j2htrp3nvg7navb8g8egu6sehnpgcj@4ax.com...
>SNIP
>
| |
| Tom Lucas 2006-10-16, 8:27 am |
| <doctor_my_eye@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1160840870.365203.235310@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
>
> Take whatever position you like in the refractive surgery debate, but
> don't expect me to be civil with this Roiland XXXXXXX who has no
> reason
> to live.
Fair enough, all I was saying is that there might be a better approach
in the light of the fact that this forum could be a place that could
generate work for you. Actually, thinking about it, the chances of
someone in a worldwide forum living close enough to your surgery to
attend it is pretty small but it is still not zero.
> Tom Lucas wrote:
>
| |
| cg_aust 2006-10-16, 9:35 pm |
| Where has Ace gone ?
| |
| Ragnar 2006-10-16, 9:35 pm |
| On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 09:09:40 +0100, "Tom Lucas"
<news@REMOVE_auto_THIS_flame_TO_REPLY.clara.co.uk> wrote:
><doctor_my_eye@msn.com> wrote in message
>news:1160840870.365203.235310@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
><snip>
>
>Fair enough, all I was saying is that there might be a better approach
>in the light of the fact that this forum could be a place that could
>generate work for you. Actually, thinking about it, the chances of
>someone in a worldwide forum living close enough to your surgery to
>attend it is pretty small but it is still not zero.
Minarik is about as far from being a surgeon as can be conceived. He
strives to line his pockets with cash by misleading post refractive
surgery patients into thinking they need to be "rehabilitated". The
fact that he is the only doctor to be banned from even Surgical Eyes
(which is plenty negative enough) speaks volumes. One can also see
what a madman Minarik is in almost every one of his posts. He is
incredibly dangerous because he has enough knowlege to decieve people
into thinking he is competent. Think of him as a Ferengi.
I will give him credit for having guts though. He doesn't care that he
makes a complete fool of himself n the internet on a continuous basis.
If he ever gets sued in a big way, he could use his posts here as a
basis for pleading insanity.
>
>
>
| |
|
| shhhhh... he might hear you and come back
"cg_aust" <cg_aust@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1161044251.653302.25760@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Where has Ace gone ?
>
| |
| Ragnar 2006-10-18, 2:31 am |
| too late
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 01:50:01 GMT, "Scott" <moe__green@msn.com> wrote:
>shhhhh... he might hear you and come back
>
>"cg_aust" <cg_aust@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>news:1161044251.653302.25760@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
|
| |
|
|