|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > March 2006 > Letter in reply to Glenn's post
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 |
Letter in reply to Glenn's post
|
|
|
| I didn't want this to be buried in an old thread:
Glenn posted:
"Glenn - USAEyes.org" <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message
news:kvi112tivuolgk260lieuape43t4jvbtq5@4ax.com...
> Perhaps "Eye" should read our article on pupil size issues at
> http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/subjects..._pupil_size.htm
>
> 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.
---------------------------------------------------
Reply:
Eye did read the entire page, and Eye would like to edit the page, starting
with this sentence:
"When they occur, pupil size related aberrations can range from a minor
nuisance to transient debilitation, including the inability to drive at
night."
How about replacing the word 'transient' with the word 'permanent'? I have
other suggestions, although I see much more truth here than I was expecting
(I think I may be able to rebut some of your CRSQA surgeon's sworn testimony
from your website). I volunteer to edit the entire page. Whaddaya say?
I think that most refractive surgeons who claim that pupil size alone
doesn't matter are being deliberately deceptive: it's pupil size in relation
to the size of the effective optical zone that matters most, and of course
they are aware of this. If the entire cornea were treated in a manner that
left the cornea prolate, the contribution of pupil size to night vision
disturbances would be less due to a decrease in *induced* spherical
aberration. Kind of a moot point since all of these patients would develop
ectasia...
But the patients with large pupils would STILL be left seeing more of the
other classes of surgically induced aberrations because they are looking out
of a larger area of their corneas than the small pupil patient population.
Surgically induced coma is no fun either - I can speak with some authority
on this subject.
Of course patients with teeny tiny pupils who have laser eye surgery-induced
corneal distortions in the center of the cornea can have terrible vision
even in bright sunlight. Is this an argument that pupil size doesn't matter?
I don't think so.
Since pupil size/optical zone size mismatches don't tend to fix themselves,
how can you call pupil size related aberrations a transient debilitation?
All the large pupil patients I have met have seen no improvement after
years. And why would you expect any?
Inability to drive at night is a very big deal! It's life altering - it's
especially not something to wish on a young person. Here is an excerpt from
an e-mail I received this week from a young man in his early twenties:
"Thank you for writing; sorry I have not responded. I have not had internet
access at home for quite some time - but I do now again. But today happens
to be a particularly painful day - it is really bad - so I can't really
respond in full at the moment...but I will respond now that I have home
internet access when is less painful - back into another hot shower (the
only moment when the pain is alleviated - and the constant terrible
headache/strain throughout my frontal lobe & front of my head/eyes as if my
eyes and brain were bulging out is at least softened - a problem which has
gotten worse as the years - yes, now it's been YEARS (3rd) - go by."
What a terrific way for a to spend the early twenties! He had wavefront
LASIK on the VISX S4. Now he can't even walk outside at night, let alone
drive. He can't sleep through the night because his eyes are so dry they
wake him up. He has 'smeared' vision in both eyes. He had terrific
correctable vision with glasses and no dry eye whatsoever before LASIK. The
behavior of refractive surgeons who have evalutated him since his surgery
has been inexcusable. No, he can't be fixed with current technology - thanks
for asking. And a corneal transplant is no cure-all. Transplants have around
an 85% success rate (success meaning no rejection and/or globe rupture which
both mean blindness). Most patients with transplants don't have terrific
vision and must wear a lens on the transplant eye... and lenses are not
always well tolearated. You know all of this.
So perhaps you would consider lending some help to *stop* all of this? Those
50 tough questions don't seem to be enough.
Have you seen the contrast sensitivity data from the VISX clinical trials?
Statistically significant loss of contrast sensitivy at all time points,
measured out to 12 months. Posting it with an analysis is on my long LASIK
'to do list'. Who would have LASIK if they were informed that they would
lose contrast sensitivity long term if not permanently? Loss of contrast
sensitivity, in my opinion, is medical jargon for 'permanently dim vision'.
This is also the opinion of the MD who originally offered this definition
(thanks doc, hope you see this).
Performing a surgery that reduces vision in healthy eyes, particularly an
*elective* surgery where consequences such as loss of contrast sensitivity
are not fully explained and therefore not fully consented... is immoral. I
just love the words of the physician who posts with the byline "I swore a
Hippocratic Oath to "Do No Harm." I don't know what refractive surgeons
did!"
Personally, I had other plans for this part of my life that didn't include
staying up on the phone all night talking to post-refractive surgery
patients who want to kill themselves, studying medical journals in the field
of corneal refractive surgery evenings and weekends, and reading piles of
refractive surgeons' depositions until my vision gives out (it usually quits
before the rest of me is ready). I see grave harm marketed to the public as
medicine. Can't just let that slide in clear conscience.
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
| |
| serebel 2006-03-22, 4:21 pm |
| Oh yeah, cause your post is just soooo groundbreaking.
| |
|
| In article <4411047f$0$9162$6d36acad@titian.nntpserver.com>,
"Eye" <Eye@Eyetoohavelasikdamage_ aol.com> wrote:
> I see grave harm marketed to the public as
> medicine. Can't just let that slide in clear conscience.
Your personal hurt is understandable. What hurts your overall mission is
when you post exaggerated or distorted information. I think the truth
serves you well enough. Misinterpreting and misrepresenting gives the
impression that either you think your audience is stupid or you are (I
doubt the latter). That's what pisses people off the most. Well,
actually I think that is tied with going after people on a personal
level whether directly or through endorsing and supporting
websites/people that do.
As you know, I had a good outcome, but I don't dispute or downplay the
risks involved. I worry about the long term health of my eyes. I agree
with you completely that the conflation between an elective cosmetic
procedure and medicine is misleading to the general public and is
dangerous. That's where you should focus your energies. It appears the
approach you are taking now is only succeeding in polarizing people.
--
~RT
| |
| serebel 2006-03-22, 4:21 pm |
| RT wrote:
"It appears the
approach you are taking now is only succeeding in polarizing people."
Bingo! And as you know , I'm not nearly as diplomatic as RT.
--
| |
|
| To the best of my knowledge, I have never exaggerated or distorted anything.
Please provide a a specific example! If anything, I feel I have a hard time
conveying
how bad a bad refractive surgery outcome can really be. The people who
haven't
experienced it don't seem to 'get it'. Your damaged vision is everywhere you
look,
every waking moment for the rest of your life.
To lose your vision, relationship, career, home... over an elective eye
surgery you were assured
was safe and effective - that's just hard to get over. I think the patients
who have chronic
eye pain in addition to poor vision have the hardest time.
"RT" <RTMD24@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:RTMD24-03ACBA.00132610032006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <4411047f$0$9162$6d36acad@titian.nntpserver.com>,
> "Eye" <Eye@Eyetoohavelasikdamage_ aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> Your personal hurt is understandable. What hurts your overall mission is
> when you post exaggerated or distorted information. I think the truth
> serves you well enough. Misinterpreting and misrepresenting gives the
> impression that either you think your audience is stupid or you are (I
> doubt the latter). That's what pisses people off the most. Well,
> actually I think that is tied with going after people on a personal
> level whether directly or through endorsing and supporting
> websites/people that do.
>
> As you know, I had a good outcome, but I don't dispute or downplay the
> risks involved. I worry about the long term health of my eyes. I agree
> with you completely that the conflation between an elective cosmetic
> procedure and medicine is misleading to the general public and is
> dangerous. That's where you should focus your energies. It appears the
> approach you are taking now is only succeeding in polarizing people.
>
> --
> ~RT
>
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
| |
|
| In article <44111240$0$23031$6d36acad@titian.nntpserver.com>,
"Eye" <Eye@Eyetoohavelasikdamage_ aol.com> wrote:
> To the best of my knowledge, I have never exaggerated or distorted anything.
> Please provide a a specific example! If anything, I feel I have a hard time
> conveying
> how bad a bad refractive surgery outcome can really be. The people who
> haven't
> experienced it don't seem to 'get it'. Your damaged vision is everywhere you
> look,
> every waking moment for the rest of your life.
>
> To lose your vision, relationship, career, home... over an elective eye
> surgery you were assured
> was safe and effective - that's just hard to get over. I think the patients
> who have chronic
> eye pain in addition to poor vision have the hardest time.
Okay, next time you post something I think is exaggerated or distorted I
will point it out.
I think heartfelt posts like this one relaying your own personal
experience and feelings are worth more than any scientific study or
attack against another individual. The message is getting lost in the
name calling and legal posturing.
I agree that it's hard for people to get it unless they've felt it.
Perhaps I understand because I've had optic neuritis more than once
where I've lost all my central vision for months at a time (just a blank
spot except for the periphery of my visual field) and I have Uhthoff's
Syndrome where I lose contrast sensitivity after anything that heats up
my body (hot shower, exercise etc.). Both these conditions are temporary
(anywhere from minutes to months) but while they are happening it
doesn't necessarily feel temporary. I don't know firsthand, but I can
imagine what it would feel like to have permanent visual problems.
Okay, here's an example of your exaggeration/distortion. You have
claimed, I believe, that everyone loses contrast sensitivity post-LASIK,
and that I don't realize that I have because I don't remember what my
contrast sensitivity was before LASIK. Actually, I am hyperaware of my
contrast sensitivity and I can say with certainty that my contrast
sensitivity increased post-LASIK.
In the same way, those who don't have "damaged vision" post-LASIK have
trouble getting it, those who have been left with visual complications
don't get how well one can see post-LASIK. I don't have reduced contrast
sensitivity, visual distortions, NVD or dry eye. What I do have is clear
20/15 vision at all distances. It's amazing. I don't claim everyone has
a perfect outcome. In the same way, you and your friends should not
claim that everyone who has had LASIK is left with damaged eyes and
distorted vision.
Absolutes turn people off. When it is contrary and counterintuitive to
personal experience, then it seems like you are saying you know better
than they know of their own experience. I bet you've felt this feeling
when someone has dismissed your subjective experience--you feel like
they think either you are really dumb or you feel they are incredibly
ignorant. Not a sympathetic position. It works both ways.
--
~RT
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2006-03-22, 4:21 pm |
| As I stated the first time you posted this, and as I have stated many
times in the past, provide substantiation that any factual point is
inaccurate and I'll gladly consider revision.
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.
| |
| lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com 2006-03-22, 4:21 pm |
| now this is more like it! this is the type of forum people want to come
read!
i would also like to add my share based on my experience.
every waking moment i have to deal with the loss of contrast
sensitivity, the visual distortions, nvd's, and fluctuating vision.
i've lost my career and relationship, and yes it was elective.
but it was also based on lies! and like me, many others are having
their lives ruined because they were lied to, not candidates, either
misinformed or not informed at all, or mistakes on the doctors part,
damaged/lost flap, etc.
because lasik is such a controversial issue, people have a right to
know 'everything', and should be told everything (good or bad)because
it 'is' their decision to make.
for those of you with no problems...great!! but there are many with
some degree of complications as well!
| |
|
|
RT wrote:
> In article <44111240$0$23031$6d36acad@titian.nntpserver.com>,
> "Eye" <Eye@Eyetoohavelasikdamage_ aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> Okay, next time you post something I think is exaggerated or distorted I
> will point it out.
>
> I think heartfelt posts like this one relaying your own personal
> experience and feelings are worth more than any scientific study or
> attack against another individual. The message is getting lost in the
> name calling and legal posturing.
>
Congratulations RT, you have hit the nail on the head. The personal and
legal stuff has congested what was once a good NG. It really has NO
place here.
> I agree that it's hard for people to get it unless they've felt it.
> Perhaps I understand because I've had optic neuritis more than once
> where I've lost all my central vision for months at a time (just a blank
> spot except for the periphery of my visual field) and I have Uhthoff's
> Syndrome where I lose contrast sensitivity after anything that heats up
> my body (hot shower, exercise etc.). Both these conditions are temporary
> (anywhere from minutes to months) but while they are happening it
> doesn't necessarily feel temporary. I don't know firsthand, but I can
> imagine what it would feel like to have permanent visual problems.
>
> Okay, here's an example of your exaggeration/distortion. You have
> claimed, I believe, that everyone loses contrast sensitivity post-LASIK,
> and that I don't realize that I have because I don't remember what my
> contrast sensitivity was before LASIK. Actually, I am hyperaware of my
> contrast sensitivity and I can say with certainty that my contrast
> sensitivity increased post-LASIK.
>
> In the same way, those who don't have "damaged vision" post-LASIK have
> trouble getting it, those who have been left with visual complications
> don't get how well one can see post-LASIK. I don't have reduced contrast
> sensitivity, visual distortions, NVD or dry eye. What I do have is clear
> 20/15 vision at all distances. It's amazing. I don't claim everyone has
> a perfect outcome. In the same way, you and your friends should not
> claim that everyone who has had LASIK is left with damaged eyes and
> distorted vision
>
> Absolutes turn people off.
And so does zealotry. The zealots in this NG have ruined it for
everyone.
When it is contrary and counterintuitive to
> personal experience, then it seems like you are saying you know better
> than they know of their own experience. I bet you've felt this feeling
> when someone has dismissed your subjective experience--you feel like
> they think either you are really dumb or you feel they are incredibly
> ignorant. Not a sympathetic position. It works both ways.
>
> --
> ~RT
| |
| Ragnar 2006-03-22, 4:21 pm |
| Since when is LASIK a controversial issue?
It's just about the least controversial surgical procedure there is.
On 9 Mar 2006 23:11:37 -0800, lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com wrote:
>now this is more like it! this is the type of forum people want to come
>read!
>
>i would also like to add my share based on my experience.
>
>every waking moment i have to deal with the loss of contrast
>sensitivity, the visual distortions, nvd's, and fluctuating vision.
>i've lost my career and relationship, and yes it was elective.
>
>but it was also based on lies! and like me, many others are having
>their lives ruined because they were lied to, not candidates, either
>misinformed or not informed at all, or mistakes on the doctors part,
>damaged/lost flap, etc.
>
>because lasik is such a controversial issue, people have a right to
>know 'everything', and should be told everything (good or bad)because
>it 'is' their decision to make.
>
>for those of you with no problems...great!! but there are many with
>some degree of complications as well!
| |
|
| In article <umj21214a0rrdij3iqqodlbbmd4m570ebu@4ax.com>,
Ragnar <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Since when is LASIK a controversial issue?
> It's just about the least controversial surgical procedure there is.
Troll.
--
~RT
| |
|
| In article <1141974697.276373.188260@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com wrote:
> but it was also based on lies! and like me, many others are having
> their lives ruined because they were lied to, not candidates, either
> misinformed or not informed at all, or mistakes on the doctors part,
> damaged/lost flap, etc.
How do you mean based on lies?
LASIK is a product. It is sold by salesmen out to make a profit. Because
it is performed by surgeons it is conflated with a medical procedure.
That's too bad and that's what unscrupulous people capitalize on. One
should approach hiring a surgeon to perform LASIK as one would hire any
professional to provide a service. In our capitalist market, it is
incumbent upon the buyer to protect him or herself.
What worries me most about LASIK is that people tend to gloss over what
they don't want to hear and then regret it later. I was an okay
candidate (not perfect--I had some additional risk factors because of my
history of optic neuritis.) My surgeon told me several times--you could
lose 2 lines of BCVA. You could end up with a BCVA of 20/40--are you
prepared for that possibility? Could you live with that? I said yes,
because I didn't think it would happen to me--and because that didn't
sound so bad...Not being able to be corrected beyond 20/40 didn't mean
anything to me. But if it really had happened, I'm not sure I could have
lived with it.
Before accusing LASIK centers of lying, it is important to really be
truthful with yourself. What did you "hear" or not "hear"? Was this an
impulse purchase? Did you get a second opinion? Did you put more
research into your last computer purchase than your decision to hire a
surgeon to perform LASIK on your eyes?
Ultimately, it is going to be futile to take on an industry that has had
a lot of success both with results and financially. Educating potential
consumers (not patients) to research this purchase even more than they
would other large purchases (these are our only eyes after all), is the
best approach IMHO.
--
~RT
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2006-03-22, 4:21 pm |
| Dom,
Yes, Lasik can be a controversial issue and people do need to know all
sides of the issue, but people should not be lied to, should not have
statements manipulated into something they do not mean, they should
not have medical studies deliberately misinterpreted, they should not
have the meaning of a term changed in order to forward an
unsustainable agenda.
Neither side should do this.
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.
| |
| lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com 2006-03-22, 4:21 pm |
| > How do you mean based on lies?
>
drs. herbert nevyas & anita nevyas-wallace. they told me several times
i was a "good candidate", even 'after' they knew of my history. these
doctors were quite reputable and had excellecnt affiliations.
the problem is i believe these doctors worked outside the scope of
their professional capacity i.e.not following mandated guidelines by
doing people who were not candidates.
> LASIK is a product. It is sold by salesmen out to make a profit.
exactly! now show me that all salesmen are truthful!
> it is performed by surgeons it is conflated with a medical procedure.
> That's too bad and that's what unscrupulous people capitalize on. One
> should approach hiring a surgeon to perform LASIK as one would hire any
> professional to provide a service. In our capitalist market, it is
> incumbent upon the buyer to protect him or herself.
people are trusting their doctors based on reputation and experience,
and if they are unaware of any unscrupulous activity, then how are they
to know otherwise?
> What worries me most about LASIK is that people tend to gloss over what
> they don't want to hear and then regret it later.
when it comes to your eyes, people shouldn't 'gloss over' anything.
I was an okay candidate (not perfect--I had some additional risk
factors because of my
> history of optic neuritis.) My surgeon told me several times--you could
> lose 2 lines of BCVA. You could end up with a BCVA of 20/40--are you
> prepared for that possibility? Could you live with that? I said yes,
> because I didn't think it would happen to me--and because that didn't
> sound so bad...Not being able to be corrected beyond 20/40 didn't mean
> anything to me.
and this is my key point. there are people having this done who 'are
not candidates'! most don't want to go have a 2nd or 3rd opinion,
because they would rather believe this one doctor.
>But if it really had happened, I'm not sure I could have lived with it.
you state the obvious for many casualties, but because you have better
results, you seem like you dispute and try to protect the doctors/laser
centers...
> Before accusing LASIK centers of lying, it is important to really be
> truthful with yourself. What did you "hear" or not "hear"? Was this an
> impulse purchase? Did you get a second opinion? Did you put more
> research into your last computer purchase than your decision to hire a
> surgeon to perform LASIK on your eyes?
i considered everything i was told! this wasn't a car or a computer,
this was my eyes. and i 'am accusing' them of lying, because i've
proven it. not only in my case, but others!
> Ultimately, it is going to be futile to take on an industry that has had
> a lot of success both with results and financially. Educating potential
> consumers (not patients) to research this purchase even more than they
> would other large purchases (these are our only eyes after all), is the
> best approach IMHO.
and as long as people 'do' their research, and even take the time to
have a 2nd or 3rd opinion, the less likely they are for complications.
i sent this to someone asking for an opinion in january:
hey...and thanks for the compliments regarding my
website. personally, i don't think i would want to
have lasik done by a chain, given the experiences of
many people, but i don't really know what kind of
doctors they are either. i wouldn't want to 'ruin'
any reputation they might or might not have, so i
would suggest if the consultation is free, then see
what they have to say, and then see another doctor.
if you get anything conflicting, then i would
reconsider. from what i understand, most of theses
doctors do offer free consultations, so if you have
the time, try several, and 'please' do not rush into
anything, or let them try to 'sell' this to you.
you've only got 1 set of eyes, and most of the
casualties i've spoken to are permanently damaged!!
i hope this helps, and please let me know either way.
thanks again!
and the response i got last week
To: "LASIKsucks4u" <lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com>
just to let you know I did what you said, and I did have conflicting
results from 2 different doctors. The place I was going to go ahead
with
wanted to do standard lasik, and said I should have no complications.
The other doctor I went so said he would not do standard lasik on me,
but insisted that I need custom due to my large pupil size 8.2mm ...
after more research I found that I am a little more prone to night
vision problems due to me larger pupil size - http://www.lasikmd.com
did
not even mention this to me. needless to say this scared the shit out
of me, so I cancelled my appointments and last week went out and got a
new pair of glasses.
thanks for all your help!
people are being misled...
dom
| |
| lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com 2006-03-22, 4:21 pm |
| exactly!
| |
|
| In article <1142005701.707018.193740@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
lasiksucks4u@yahoo.com wrote:
> drs. herbert nevyas & anita nevyas-wallace. they told me several times
> i was a "good candidate", even 'after' they knew of my history. these
> doctors were quite reputable and had excellecnt affiliations.
what was your history? what do you know now that that you didn't know at
the time that contraindicated you? what year did you have the procedure
done? The problem with the phrase "good candidate' is that it doesn't
absolve anyone of all the inherent risks involved in the procedure.
>
> exactly! now show me that all salesmen are truthful!
I would never argue that all salesmen are truthful neither are they all
liars. Salesmen are out to sell a product and make a profit. Salesmen
want to avoid "returns" and lawsuits and work on getting a good
reputation in order to increase sales. But a salesman who consistently
rips people off or provides a subpar product will quickly go out of
business. As in any business, there are good guys, sleezy guys and run
of the mill guys. Again, it's the doctor/surgeon thing. People hold
doctors to a higher standard because they are "healers." LASIK is not
about healing--it's cosmetic.
>
> people are trusting their doctors based on reputation and experience,
> and if they are unaware of any unscrupulous activity, then how are they
> to know otherwise?
Because like anyone you would hire to do a service for you, you
interview them, get recommendations etc. I wouldn't hire a babysitter
for my children based on reputation and their resume alone as I wouldn't
hire the first person who walked through my door without interviewing
them, checking their references etc. Some people do criminal background
checks. I researched outstanding lawsuits against my surgeon and asked
him about them. Do unscrupulous ones get through the process? Of course!
the problem is that people trust Doctors. We put our lives in their
hands to cure us and heal us. LASIK is not about that. It's the
conflation between doctors and medicine that messes people up. The best
thing you could do for the public is to educate them that they are
buying a product, not going to see "the doctor."
>
>
> when it comes to your eyes, people shouldn't 'gloss over' anything.
People do when they want something enough and the advertised outcome is
so cool.
> and this is my key point. there are people having this done who 'are
> not candidates'! most don't want to go have a 2nd or 3rd opinion,
> because they would rather believe this one doctor.
so we are in agreement. How to educate people to realize they are buying
a product and hiring a professional to provide a service. Get rid of the
"trust" factor and HIRE your LASIK surgeon. the people getting LASIK are
not patients--they are consumers.
>
>
> you state the obvious for many casualties, but because you have better
> results, you seem like you dispute and try to protect the doctors/laser
> centers...
that may be your perception because of your experience and point of
view. Ask someone else on this NG and they'll give another
interpretation of what I write.
I have maintained consistently that LASIK needs to be approached in the
same manner as you would to hire any other professional to perform a
service for you. However, LASIK is never a slam dunk. There are always
risks and contingencies based on each person's individual circumstances.
But it works for most people most of the time. And when it does work,
it's great.
>
> i considered everything i was told! this wasn't a car or a computer,
> this was my eyes. and i 'am accusing' them of lying, because i've
> proven it. not only in my case, but others!
What were the lies you were told? could you please list them. What is
the proof? I'm not challenging you here, I simple don't know.
>
> and as long as people 'do' their research, and even take the time to
> have a 2nd or 3rd opinion, the less likely they are for complications.
Maybe, maybe not. Complications happen to people who appear to have a
very low risk factor even when their LASIK is performed by a skilled
surgeon. The difference is that they were aware of, understood, and
accepted the risks. LASIK should not be an impulse purchase.
> i sent this to someone asking for an opinion in january:
Good, this person heard the risks and made an informed choice. LASIK is
not for people who are not risk takers. Even the FDA website points this
out.
--
~RT
|
| |
|
|