|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > February 2006 > Hagele and Bovine Fertilizer
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 |
Hagele and Bovine Fertilizer
|
|
|
| So, let's see. LasikInfoCenter.net requests no donations and sells no
$ertification$, and was founded by the victim of LASIK malpractice.
The owner has legally republished MEDICAL JOURNAL ARTICLES from the
likes of the surgeons $ertified by CR$QA. Isn't that correct, Hagele?
No court of law has found the owner guilty of a crime, correct? He
didn't write his own articles, so I'd say that the information found on
LasikInfoCenter.net is probably very reliable. However, court
documentations of malpractice litigation lawsuits against surgeons,
some of them CR$QA $ertified, are also found on LasikInfoCenter.net.
This doesn't help CR$QA one bit. "Official complaints"? Anyone can
file an "official complaint". That doesn't mean much in and of itself.
Then, come to find out, the "official complaint" that you mention was
filed by none other than yourself. Shame on you, Hagele, for trying to
dupe this audience into believing your implications. At least the New
York officials you complained to were smarter.
USAEyes contains mostly articles written by Glenn Hagele, who is NOT a
doctor, and other authors of dubious credentials. In some instances,
PATIENTS have had to write to Glenn Hagele to assist him in making
corrections to his articles. CR$QA $ells $ertifications to surgeons,
which are used as a marketing tool to help them get more LA$IK victim$.
This newsgroup contains old posts by Glenn Hagele explaining the
benefit$ of CR$QA $ertification for surgeons, including how once a
surgeon is $ertified, CR$QA will refer patients via its web$ite.
This is a very misleading statement you wrote, Hagele: "According to
court documents in litigation brought by a Dallas ophthalmologist
against Hanson, the purpose of these acts is to extort money from the
targets of his attacks." Has Hanson been found guilty of extortion?
You are purposely implying and hoping that people draw untrue
conclusions.
Anyone can get a restraining order and anyone can sue someone and
accuse them of extortion and all kinds of bad things. Did I miss the
jury trial, Hagele, or hasn't there been one yet?
Furthermore, who would believe your assertion that a judge would
sentence someone to a jail term that begins a year later?
Maybe you should explain EXACTLY what the documents are that "prove"
what you say they prove. Do they contain PROOF, or do they merely
contain ACCUSATIONS?
After all, if that is how we are to read "court documents", you are a
tax evader. There is at least one court document accusing you of such,
isn't there? Not to mention what your ex-wife probably complained
about in her "court documents".
Hagele wrote: "CRSQA is not paid for each patient referral, click
through to a
website, number of impressions on a web page, or any such quid pro
quo. Whether or not a patient decides to or not to have refractive
surgery of any kind is of virtually no consequence to CRSQA's form of
funding."
While a casual reader may not question this statement, if you analyze
this briefly, you can draw the conclusion
that the health of CR$QA is undoubtedly impacted by the number of
patients it refers to its $ertified doctors. I doubt that those
doctors are dumb enough to invest thousands of dollars every few weeks
into a marketing method that offers them no tangible ROI (return on
investment). I think that CR$QA probably provides all of its
currently paying doctors with reports on numbers of referrals sent via
the website, telephone referrals, etc. The more patients referred,
the more who have LASIK...the doctors are keeping an eye on their
advertising budgets and ROI--so, yes, whether or not people have
surgery does eventually have consequences for CR$QA's funding.
CR$QA's financial health depends on the financial health of the
refractive surgery industryas a whole too, indirectly or not.
Lying the truth, Glenn? Really, someone around here needs to take
the time to pick apart your posts and retrieve whatever truth there
might be from the loads of bovine fertilizer. As prolific as your
posts are, it would be a full-time job. No one ever said you weren't
slick.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2006-02-25, 9:53 pm |
| On 21 Feb 2006 19:15:57 -0800, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>So, let's see. LasikInfoCenter.net requests no donations and sells no
>$ertification$, and was founded by the victim of LASIK malpractice.
LasikInfoCenter.net is a source of malpractice referrals including
referrals to Arial Berschadsky, the New York lawyer who operates it
and has for years attempted to hide his ownership. LasikInfoCenter.net
is a for-profit commercial enterprise.
>The owner has legally republished MEDICAL JOURNAL ARTICLES from the
>likes of the surgeons $ertified by CR$QA. Isn't that correct, Hagele?
It may be correct, but of the over 120 publications I contacted,
including medical journals, none stated that they had provided
Berschadsky permission to reprint the articles.
>No court of law has found the owner guilty of a crime, correct?
I do not know. I know that at least dozens of the publications
demanded that he immediately remove the articles. Whether or not that
satisfied them I do not know. Whether or not they litigated, I do not
know. I do know that many, in fact most, of the 120+ articles have
been removed from LasikInfoCenter.net. I do know that he did not have
permission to republish many of the 120+ articles.
This is a lawyer who on his own website states that he is a copyright
specialist who publishes on his own website copyrighted articles
without the articles' owners' permission. Not one or two articles, but
scores of articles.
>He
>didn't write his own articles, so I'd say that the information found on
>LasikInfoCenter.net is probably very reliable.
The reliability of the articles was never questioned. What was
questioned was if Berschadsky had the right to republish articles
owned by others on his commercial for-profit website without the
permission of the rightful owners of those articles.
>However, court
>documentations of malpractice litigation lawsuits against surgeons,
>some of them CR$QA $ertified, are also found on LasikInfoCenter.net.
Republication of public documents by Ariel Berschadsky on his
LasikInfoCenter.net website was never questioned.
>This doesn't help CR$QA one bit.
If by "(t)his" you mean publication of public documents by Berschadsky
on his LasikInfoCenter.net website, it is of no consequence one way or
another. Anyone can look up public documents.
It is problematic that Berschadsky will list under "current
litigation" items that were never litigated and the possibility of
litigation has long since passed.
>"Official complaints"? Anyone can
>file an "official complaint".
Yes, we saw this with Keller's "official complains" against her former
doctors.
>That doesn't mean much in and of itself.
It means that someone had a complaint. It means that the contents of
that complaint is now public record.
> Then, come to find out, the "official complaint" that you mention was
>filed by none other than yourself.
I never claimed otherwise. The existence of my complaint against
Berschadsky is public.
>Shame on you, Hagele, for trying to
>dupe this audience into believing your implications. At least the New
>York officials you complained to were smarter.
There is no shame in stating the facts. I have made this all public
without limitation.
> USAEyes contains mostly articles written by Glenn Hagele, who is NOT a
>doctor, and other authors of dubious credentials. In some instances,
>PATIENTS have had to write to Glenn Hagele to assist him in making
>corrections to his articles.
I have always welcomed anyone's critique of our website. If there are
any factual inaccuracy, I request that it be brought to my attention
so it can be corrected. To my recollection, there has never been
anything of consequence that needed to be changed, but I appreciate
any indication of something that may be interpreted inaccurately or
something that might actually be wrong.
For all of Keller's comments about me, not once has Keller presented
anything on our website that is factually inaccurate.
>CR$QA $ells $ertifications to surgeons,
>which are used as a marketing tool
Do you really think using a dollar sign instead of a letter 's' is
clever? It appears childish to me.
Whether a surgeon uses the fact that s/he has been independently
evaluated by a patient/consumer organization in their marketing is
their decision, not mine. I personally would hope that potential
patients would pay close attention to any certification attained by a
surgeon and to understand its relative value.
Anything that makes a patient more aware of the qualities of their
potential surgeon is good, in my book. That is why we provide our 50
Tough Questions For Your Doctor. These can help a patient evaluate any
surgeon, whether CRSQA certified or not.
>to help them get more LA$IK victim$.
The characterization of Lasik patients as "victims" is inconsistent
with the reality, but not surprising from Keller.
> This newsgroup contains old posts by Glenn Hagele explaining the
>benefit$ of CR$QA $ertification for surgeons, including how once a
>surgeon is $ertified, CR$QA will refer patients via its web$ite.
The purpose of our organization is to help patients find the better
surgeons. At the very least, a CRSQA Certified Refractive Surgeon is
an evaluated surgeon and has met our requirements. I very much desire
patients to at lest consider the services of a CRSQA Certified
Refractive Surgeon, and thousands do each month.
> This is a very misleading statement you wrote, Hagele: "According to
>court documents in litigation brought by a Dallas ophthalmologist
>against Hanson, the purpose of these acts is to extort money from the
>targets of his attacks."
The statement is not misleading. It is a directly from the court
filings. It is contained within litigation which Brent Hanson himself
agreed his acts were contemptuous of the court and Brent Hanson
himself agreed that he should not be allowed within 500 feet of the
doctor, the doctor's family, home, staff, office, and even attorneys.
>Has Hanson been found guilty of extortion?
To my knowledge, no. Furthermore, I do not believe in his admissions
to the court that he acknowledged extortion was the purpose of his
attacks on Dr. Boothe. Actually, Hanson claimed that his attacks on
Dr. Boothe were to "protect" another Dallas doctor. If one wants to
know what doctor Brent Hanson thinks so highly of that he will go to
jail to attack a perceived competitor, just look at the court
documents.
>You are purposely implying and hoping that people draw untrue
>conclusions.
It would appear that your ego is getting out of hand when you tell me
the motivation for my own acts. You are absolutely wrong.
The character of Brent Hanson has been firmly established to be that
of a liar, someone who will physically threaten others, a person so
lacking in respect of others that his contemptuous acts have earned
him being fined and sentenced to a year and a half in jail.
It says a lot about Sandy Keller's character when she defends someone
like Brent Hanson.
>Anyone can get a restraining order and anyone can sue someone and
>accuse them of extortion and all kinds of bad things. Did I miss the
>jury trial, Hagele, or hasn't there been one yet?
A jury trial was not necessary in the case of Boothe v. Hanson. After
irrefutable evidence was presented, Hanson admitted his lies, Hanson
acknowledged his contemptuous acts, Hanson with his own signature
agreed that all of these allegations against him were accurate.
If Keller does not like the fact that the Texas court found Hanson's
acts worthy of fine and incarceration, then she needs to blame Hanson
for agreeing with the court.
>Furthermore, who would believe your assertion that a judge would
>sentence someone to a jail term that begins a year later?
The certified copy of the order is at
http://glennhagele.com/brenthanson/..._Jail_Order.pdf
Anyone who desires may retrieve a copy directly from the court.
What is the charter of a person who would NOT believe the actual order
of the court?
> Maybe you should explain EXACTLY what the documents are that "prove"
>what you say they prove. Do they contain PROOF, or do they merely
>contain ACCUSATIONS?
They contain accusations, proof, and Hanson's own admission. Does
Keller require more? The Texas court didn't.
> After all, if that is how we are to read "court documents", you are a
>tax evader. There is at least one court document accusing you of such,
>isn't there?
Yes, and this issue was finally adjudicated through internal IRS
processes in my favor, as was previously stated.
The documents to which I refer are the final determination of the
court, as agreed by Brent Hanson. I am not just referring to
accusations (a common technique of Brent Hanson, BTW), I am referring
to what the court finally determined and Hanson agreed.
>Not to mention what your ex-wife probably complained
>about in her "court documents".
Is it time for me to publish your divorce documents Keller? Perhaps we
should all see what your ex-neighbor has to say about you too. And
then there are those business dealings that went south. Perhaps this
errata is important to some, but it has nothing to do with refractive
surgery issues, now does it?
>Hagele wrote: "CRSQA is not paid for each patient referral, click
>through to a
>website, number of impressions on a web page, or any such quid pro
>quo. Whether or not a patient decides to or not to have refractive
>surgery of any kind is of virtually no consequence to CRSQA's form of
>funding."
This is accurate.
>While a casual reader may not question this statement, if you analyze
>this briefly, you can draw the conclusion
>that the health of CR$QA is undoubtedly impacted by the number of
>patients it refers to its $ertified doctors. I doubt that those
>doctors are dumb enough to invest thousands of dollars every few weeks
>into a marketing method that offers them no tangible ROI (return on
>investment).
I have stated many times in the past, and now again, that some CRSQA
Certified Refractive Surgeons maintain their certification strictly
because it is profitable for them, some strictly because of the good
work we do, some a mixture of the two.
I really don't care if a good doctor makes gawdzillions of dollars
providing good care to patients who elect to seek and have refractive
surgery, so long as the doctor's patients are receiving care at or
above the norm.
After all, the cost of surgery is about the same if it is an excellent
doctor or an inferior doctor. I prefer the patient have the tools to
determine if their potential doctor is excellent or inferior. Our
certification is one indication. The 50 Tough Questions For Your
Doctor is an excellent tool to evaluate a potential doctor.
>I think that CR$QA probably provides all of its
>currently paying doctors with reports on numbers of referrals sent via
>the website, telephone referrals, etc.
Of course.
>The more patients referred,
>the more who have LASIK...the doctors are keeping an eye on their
>advertising budgets and ROI--so, yes, whether or not people have
>surgery does eventually have consequences for CR$QA's funding.
Undoubtedly some of our certified surgeons look at their certification
with us, certification with the American Board of Eye Surgeons,
certification with the American Board of Ophthalmology, membership in
the American Academy of Ophthalmology and other ophthalmic groups,
etc. as a return on investment.
Come to think of it, those Lasik surgeons who pay advertising dollars
to be on the LasikDisaster.com website are probably looking at that as
a return on investment too. How much does LasikDisaster.com make from
advertising Lasik surgeons through Google ads?
>CR$QA's financial health depends on the financial health of the
>refractive surgery industryas a whole too, indirectly or not.
Of course. If the refractive surgery industry did not exist there
would be no need for a source of objective and factually substantiated
information, nor would there be a need to identify the better
surgeons.
> Lying the truth, Glenn? Really, someone around here needs to take
>the time to pick apart your posts and retrieve whatever truth there
>might be from the loads of bovine fertilizer. As prolific as your
>posts are, it would be a full-time job. No one ever said you weren't
>slick.
I do not believe it would be an exaggeration to say that I have been
subjected to being picked apart more than anyone else who participates
in this group. Keller and her accomplic-...buddies see to that.
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.
| |
|
| Well, since there's is no such thing as 'good' corneal refractive surgery
and you make your
living off the refractive surgery industry, the fact that your actions and
comments are scrutinized
should not be a surprise to you. If you don't want to be on the receiving
end of so much flack
go get a job doing something that doesn't hurt people.
You make money off a bad industry - and you attack good people who volunteer
their time to help patients who are damaged by this industry.
Understandably, people are offended
by your behavior.
"Glenn - USAEyes.org" <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message
news:ssmnv19jspmkdfnmo8b4v308rj0rv7v83n@4ax.com...
> On 21 Feb 2006 19:15:57 -0800, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>
>
> LasikInfoCenter.net is a source of malpractice referrals including
> referrals to Arial Berschadsky, the New York lawyer who operates it
> and has for years attempted to hide his ownership. LasikInfoCenter.net
> is a for-profit commercial enterprise.
>
>
> It may be correct, but of the over 120 publications I contacted,
> including medical journals, none stated that they had provided
> Berschadsky permission to reprint the articles.
>
>
> I do not know. I know that at least dozens of the publications
> demanded that he immediately remove the articles. Whether or not that
> satisfied them I do not know. Whether or not they litigated, I do not
> know. I do know that many, in fact most, of the 120+ articles have
> been removed from LasikInfoCenter.net. I do know that he did not have
> permission to republish many of the 120+ articles.
>
> This is a lawyer who on his own website states that he is a copyright
> specialist who publishes on his own website copyrighted articles
> without the articles' owners' permission. Not one or two articles, but
> scores of articles.
>
>
> The reliability of the articles was never questioned. What was
> questioned was if Berschadsky had the right to republish articles
> owned by others on his commercial for-profit website without the
> permission of the rightful owners of those articles.
>
>
> Republication of public documents by Ariel Berschadsky on his
> LasikInfoCenter.net website was never questioned.
>
>
> If by "(t)his" you mean publication of public documents by Berschadsky
> on his LasikInfoCenter.net website, it is of no consequence one way or
> another. Anyone can look up public documents.
>
> It is problematic that Berschadsky will list under "current
> litigation" items that were never litigated and the possibility of
> litigation has long since passed.
>
>
> Yes, we saw this with Keller's "official complains" against her former
> doctors.
>
>
> It means that someone had a complaint. It means that the contents of
> that complaint is now public record.
>
>
> I never claimed otherwise. The existence of my complaint against
> Berschadsky is public.
>
>
> There is no shame in stating the facts. I have made this all public
> without limitation.
>
>
> I have always welcomed anyone's critique of our website. If there are
> any factual inaccuracy, I request that it be brought to my attention
> so it can be corrected. To my recollection, there has never been
> anything of consequence that needed to be changed, but I appreciate
> any indication of something that may be interpreted inaccurately or
> something that might actually be wrong.
>
> For all of Keller's comments about me, not once has Keller presented
> anything on our website that is factually inaccurate.
>
>
> Do you really think using a dollar sign instead of a letter 's' is
> clever? It appears childish to me.
>
> Whether a surgeon uses the fact that s/he has been independently
> evaluated by a patient/consumer organization in their marketing is
> their decision, not mine. I personally would hope that potential
> patients would pay close attention to any certification attained by a
> surgeon and to understand its relative value.
>
> Anything that makes a patient more aware of the qualities of their
> potential surgeon is good, in my book. That is why we provide our 50
> Tough Questions For Your Doctor. These can help a patient evaluate any
> surgeon, whether CRSQA certified or not.
>
>
> The characterization of Lasik patients as "victims" is inconsistent
> with the reality, but not surprising from Keller.
>
>
> The purpose of our organization is to help patients find the better
> surgeons. At the very least, a CRSQA Certified Refractive Surgeon is
> an evaluated surgeon and has met our requirements. I very much desire
> patients to at lest consider the services of a CRSQA Certified
> Refractive Surgeon, and thousands do each month.
>
>
> The statement is not misleading. It is a directly from the court
> filings. It is contained within litigation which Brent Hanson himself
> agreed his acts were contemptuous of the court and Brent Hanson
> himself agreed that he should not be allowed within 500 feet of the
> doctor, the doctor's family, home, staff, office, and even attorneys.
>
>
> To my knowledge, no. Furthermore, I do not believe in his admissions
> to the court that he acknowledged extortion was the purpose of his
> attacks on Dr. Boothe. Actually, Hanson claimed that his attacks on
> Dr. Boothe were to "protect" another Dallas doctor. If one wants to
> know what doctor Brent Hanson thinks so highly of that he will go to
> jail to attack a perceived competitor, just look at the court
> documents.
>
>
> It would appear that your ego is getting out of hand when you tell me
> the motivation for my own acts. You are absolutely wrong.
>
> The character of Brent Hanson has been firmly established to be that
> of a liar, someone who will physically threaten others, a person so
> lacking in respect of others that his contemptuous acts have earned
> him being fined and sentenced to a year and a half in jail.
>
> It says a lot about Sandy Keller's character when she defends someone
> like Brent Hanson.
>
>
> A jury trial was not necessary in the case of Boothe v. Hanson. After
> irrefutable evidence was presented, Hanson admitted his lies, Hanson
> acknowledged his contemptuous acts, Hanson with his own signature
> agreed that all of these allegations against him were accurate.
>
> If Keller does not like the fact that the Texas court found Hanson's
> acts worthy of fine and incarceration, then she needs to blame Hanson
> for agreeing with the court.
>
>
> The certified copy of the order is at
> http://glennhagele.com/brenthanson/..._Jail_Order.pdf
> Anyone who desires may retrieve a copy directly from the court.
>
> What is the charter of a person who would NOT believe the actual order
> of the court?
>
>
> They contain accusations, proof, and Hanson's own admission. Does
> Keller require more? The Texas court didn't.
>
>
> Yes, and this issue was finally adjudicated through internal IRS
> processes in my favor, as was previously stated.
>
> The documents to which I refer are the final determination of the
> court, as agreed by Brent Hanson. I am not just referring to
> accusations (a common technique of Brent Hanson, BTW), I am referring
> to what the court finally determined and Hanson agreed.
>
>
> Is it time for me to publish your divorce documents Keller? Perhaps we
> should all see what your ex-neighbor has to say about you too. And
> then there are those business dealings that went south. Perhaps this
> errata is important to some, but it has nothing to do with refractive
> surgery issues, now does it?
>
>
> This is accurate.
>
>
> I have stated many times in the past, and now again, that some CRSQA
> Certified Refractive Surgeons maintain their certification strictly
> because it is profitable for them, some strictly because of the good
> work we do, some a mixture of the two.
>
> I really don't care if a good doctor makes gawdzillions of dollars
> providing good care to patients who elect to seek and have refractive
> surgery, so long as the doctor's patients are receiving care at or
> above the norm.
>
> After all, the cost of surgery is about the same if it is an excellent
> doctor or an inferior doctor. I prefer the patient have the tools to
> determine if their potential doctor is excellent or inferior. Our
> certification is one indication. The 50 Tough Questions For Your
> Doctor is an excellent tool to evaluate a potential doctor.
>
>
> Of course.
>
>
> Undoubtedly some of our certified surgeons look at their certification
> with us, certification with the American Board of Eye Surgeons,
> certification with the American Board of Ophthalmology, membership in
> the American Academy of Ophthalmology and other ophthalmic groups,
> etc. as a return on investment.
>
> Come to think of it, those Lasik surgeons who pay advertising dollars
> to be on the LasikDisaster.com website are probably looking at that as
> a return on investment too. How much does LasikDisaster.com make from
> advertising Lasik surgeons through Google ads?
>
>
> Of course. If the refractive surgery industry did not exist there
> would be no need for a source of objective and factually substantiated
> information, nor would there be a need to identify the better
> surgeons.
>
>
> I do not believe it would be an exaggeration to say that I have been
> subjected to being picked apart more than anyone else who participates
> in this group. Keller and her accomplic-...buddies see to that.
>
> 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.
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
|
| |
|
|