|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > July 2006 > Best time of year for LASIK?
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 |
Best time of year for LASIK?
|
|
| me@privacy.net 2006-07-09, 9:26 pm |
| Does there exist any optimal time of year for having
LASIK done?
Medically optical that is?
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2006-07-09, 9:26 pm |
| On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 17:47:37 -0500, me@privacy.net wrote:
>Does there exist any optimal time of year for having
>LASIK done?
>
>Medically optical that is?
A good surgeon accommodates the changes that may occur based upon the
time of year, atmospheric pressure, relative humidity, etc. What you
want to avoid is something that causes a temporary change in your
eyes, such as seasonal allergies when you are taking allergy meds.
Measurements during temporary conditions can yield a poor result after
those conditions pass.
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.
| |
|
|
me@privacy.net wrote:
> Does there exist any optimal time of year for having
> LASIK done?
>
> Medically optical that is?
whenever you want. Before you get lasik, ask yourself why you want it
and whats your expectations? Whats your pescription? read all about the
risks
| |
| serebel 2006-07-09, 9:26 pm |
|
Ace wrote:
>
>
> whenever you want. Before you get lasik, ask yourself why you want it
> and whats your expectations? Whats your pescription? read all about the
> risks
One's expectations are that they can see. No one has to answer to you
Ace.
| |
|
|
serebel wrote:
> Ace wrote:
>
>
> One's expectations are that they can see. No one has to answer to you
> Ace.
He can see with glasses, lasik is elective and without a good reason,
its not worth the risks of not seeing as well with glasses.
| |
| Ragnar 2006-07-10, 4:27 pm |
| You are out of your mind.
The "risks" of LASIK are as close to zero as can be imagined.
On 9 Jul 2006 21:22:17 -0700, "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>serebel wrote:
>
>
>He can see with glasses, lasik is elective and without a good reason,
>its not worth the risks of not seeing as well with glasses.
| |
|
|
Ragnar wrote:
> You are out of your mind.
>
> The "risks" of LASIK are as close to zero as can be imagined.
>
Glenn says 3% have a major complication. A much higher percent have
minor complications. Even if we listened to you, even you admit its NOT
zero. Regardless of what anyone says, please research all about lasik
before making your choice.
| |
| Ragnar 2006-07-10, 4:27 pm |
| Glenn never said such a thing. He never used the word MAJOR
He has said that at 6 months post op, 3% of refractive surgery
patients have an ongoing complication. That's not unexpected. With
LASEK or PRK, that could be a year before the complications are gone.
With refractive surgery, the complications drop off over time to just
about zero. Why do you find it impossible to acknowlege that?
Incidentally, while refractive surgery complaints are 3% at 6 months
and then drop off.. contact lens complications are 5% throughout all
the years of wearing them.. and the complication rate INCREASES over
time instead of decreases. And as for glasses. 100% of people
wearing glasses suffer the complication of wearing a device on their
head the fogs up scratches, slips, puts dents in your temples and
nose, irritates your ears, and does not correct astigmatism.
Now.. did you learn something? Or are you going to stick your head up
the XXX of Keller and Burch and feed off of more of their crap? That
may sound crude, but it is what you have been doing.
On 10 Jul 2006 10:31:02 -0700, "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Ragnar wrote:
>
>
>Glenn says 3% have a major complication. A much higher percent have
>minor complications. Even if we listened to you, even you admit its NOT
>zero. Regardless of what anyone says, please research all about lasik
>before making your choice.
| |
|
|
Ragnar wrote:
> Glenn never said such a thing. He never used the word MAJOR
> He has said that at 6 months post op, 3% of refractive surgery
> patients have an ongoing complication. That's not unexpected. With
> LASEK or PRK, that could be a year before the complications are gone.
> With refractive surgery, the complications drop off over time to just
> about zero. Why do you find it impossible to acknowlege that?
>
> Incidentally, while refractive surgery complaints are 3% at 6 months
> and then drop off.. contact lens complications are 5% throughout all
> the years of wearing them.. and the complication rate INCREASES over
> time instead of decreases. And as for glasses. 100% of people
> wearing glasses suffer the complication of wearing a device on their
> head the fogs up scratches, slips, puts dents in your temples and
> nose, irritates your ears, and does not correct astigmatism.
>
> Now.. did you learn something? Or are you going to stick your head up
> the XXX of Keller and Burch and feed off of more of their crap? That
> may sound crude, but it is what you have been doing.
If you count only the complications that are reported. Lots more arent
reported and get swept under the rug. If you read their stories of
failed lasik, most of them will say their surgeon put them down for
"successful" lasik because they ended up better than 20/40 but still
have problems like dry eyes, poor night vision, ghosting, double
vision, high order aberrations, etc. One guy I know online says he sees
three moons, nevermind the fact he can read 20/20 on a black/white
eyechart in bright light. I know a couple others that see, double,
triple, multiple images. One sees 7 moons, another sees like a dozen
moons! Let me find pictures.
http://www.lasikfraud.com/articles/...beration-10.gif
seven moons!
http://lasikmemorial.com/Images/Moon1_pop.jpg
blurry, ghosted poor night vision, five moons!
Are you going to deny that, Ragnar?
Contact lenses may have higher complications but they are almost always
trival such as slightly red eyes or itchy eyes. Just take them out and
in a few minutes things are fine again. Personally I dont tolerate
contacts well and dont wear them so I avoid the risks of contacts you
speak of.
Glasses is a minor complication, that much ill agree with you. Mine fog
about twice a month, just take them off for a moment and the fog is
gone. Mine never slip down or off. If yours do, you dont have the right
frame. I have no dents anywhere, except behind my ears which no one can
see anyway as my glasses are thin and light. Glasses dont really
irritate me physically. Personally, I hate my blurry vision more than I
dislike glasses. The worst thing about glasses is the dust that clings
to the lens. Glasses DO correct astigmastim, althought not quite as
well as RGPs or even lasik.
The reason why everyone doesnt jump and get lasik is the simple fact
theres a calculated risk. If your lasik goes as well as it did for
Ragnar and Serebel then yes itll make your life easier with the added
convinence. But....if it goes badly like it has for some, it could turn
out to be a nightmare.(ive asked you what would you do if your lasik
went bad and you didnt even want to think about it, not even
hypothethically) Tom Lucas is not yet happy with his lasik, although it
reduced his dependancy on glasses.
| |
| serebel 2006-07-10, 9:27 pm |
|
Ace wrote:
>
> He can see with glasses, lasik is elective and without a good reason,
> its not worth the risks of not seeing as well with glasses.
Who the f--- are you to decide what's worth a risk ?
| |
| serebel 2006-07-10, 9:27 pm |
|
Ace wrote:
> Ragnar wrote:
>
>
> If you count only the complications that are reported. Lots more arent
> reported and get swept under the rug. If you read their stories of
> failed lasik, most of them will say their surgeon put them down for
> "successful" lasik because they ended up better than 20/40 but still
> have problems like dry eyes, poor night vision, ghosting, double
> vision, high order aberrations, etc. One guy I know online says he sees
> three moons, nevermind the fact he can read 20/20 on a black/white
> eyechart in bright light. I know a couple others that see, double,
> triple, multiple images. One sees 7 moons, another sees like a dozen
> moons! Let me find pictures.
>
> http://www.lasikfraud.com/articles/...beration-10.gif
>
> seven moons!
>
>
> http://lasikmemorial.com/Images/Moon1_pop.jpg
>
> blurry, ghosted poor night vision, five moons!
>
>
> Are you going to deny that, Ragnar?
>
>
I'll deny it. Anyone can put up a website little retard, doesn't
mean it's true.
Since you depend on the internet for your truth, you are a retard.
| |
|
|
serebel wrote:
> I'll deny it. Anyone can put up a website little retard, doesn't
> mean it's true.
> Since you depend on the internet for your truth, you are a retard.
Doesnt mean its (always) false either. If he said lasik made him grow a
third eye then id call it bull. Whats so hard to believe that lasik
isnt 100% perfect? No type of surgury in the world is perfect. You
never offer condolences for those with lasik outcomes less fortunate
than yours. 
| |
| serebel 2006-07-11, 2:26 am |
|
Ace wrote:
>
> Doesnt mean its (always) false either. If he said lasik made him grow a
> third eye then id call it bull. Whats so hard to believe that lasik
> isnt 100% perfect? No type of surgury in the world is perfect. You
> never offer condolences for those with lasik outcomes less fortunate
> than yours.
Nothing is 100% perfect. I never said anything was. I don't believe
everything on the web as you do. Actual life experience and education
makes me a healthy skeptic.
| |
|
|
serebel wrote:
> Ace wrote:
>
>
> Nothing is 100% perfect. I never said anything was. I don't believe
> everything on the web as you do. Actual life experience and education
> makes me a healthy skeptic.
Its likley 95% of the lasik stories, both good and bad on the web are
real and not works of fiction. I just finished reading two more
stories, one of a -11 guy who ruined his eyes. He wasnt a good
candidate for lasik due to very high myopia. He has regressed and is
worsening and also is developing irregular astigmastim too. His night
vision sucks too and hes back in thin glasses. The other story was of a
highly myopic, highly astigmatic -6 myopia, -3 astigmatism. She had a
toric oval zone 6.5x5 and her pupils were 7mm so her night vision is
ruined. Whats worse is some of her astigmatism is returning so shes
back in glasses again! So sad and shes only 23 She just wanted to be
free of those thick glasses and she was for a while but with her 7mm
pupils, her night vision is compromised. Also with such a high
pescription like hers, regression is common. Those with pupils larger
than the laser ablation zone arent good candidates. My pupils may be
9mm and this is one(of several) good reason I cant and wont get lasik.
I am looking for orthoK with an oversized zone and have emailed some
doctors.
| |
| Rev Jessie James 2006-07-11, 2:26 am |
| The best time for lasik is spring.
Watching the buds on trees sprout into leaves or the flowers coming into
bloom at the back of my lot, sitting at kitchen table (150 feet away )
without the need for glasses or contacts was priceless.
Lasik is like a poker game, do you bet a full house, or just fold with
fear that someone may have 4 of a kind? Personally, I bet big on a full
house ;-)
Its totally up to the individual to determine what ammount of risk is
acceptable.
"serebel" <serebel@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1152583646.951508.276260@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ace wrote:
>
>
> Who the f--- are you to decide what's worth a risk ?
>
| |
| Ragnar 2006-07-11, 8:26 am |
| Hardly... more like 95% of the bad stories are fake.. and 99.9% of the
good stories never are posted. People tend not to share good
results... they DO share negative results.
Here is an analogy. If someone drives to work and nothing bad happens
on the trip.. that person doesn't show up at work and say "I had a
lovely drive to work today..." HOWEVER.. if on the drive to work,
they got in an accident.. they WILL announce that when they get to
work.
I find it disturbing that you constantly come to the wrong conclusions
about many things. I am not sure if that is out of naive ignorance,
stupidity, or malice.
On 10 Jul 2006 20:40:41 -0700, "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>serebel wrote:
>
>
>Its likley 95% of the lasik stories, both good and bad on the web are
>real and not works of fiction. I just finished reading two more
>stories, one of a -11 guy who ruined his eyes. He wasnt a good
>candidate for lasik due to very high myopia. He has regressed and is
>worsening and also is developing irregular astigmastim too. His night
>vision sucks too and hes back in thin glasses. The other story was of a
>highly myopic, highly astigmatic -6 myopia, -3 astigmatism. She had a
>toric oval zone 6.5x5 and her pupils were 7mm so her night vision is
>ruined. Whats worse is some of her astigmatism is returning so shes
>back in glasses again! So sad and shes only 23 She just wanted to be
>free of those thick glasses and she was for a while but with her 7mm
>pupils, her night vision is compromised. Also with such a high
>pescription like hers, regression is common. Those with pupils larger
>than the laser ablation zone arent good candidates. My pupils may be
>9mm and this is one(of several) good reason I cant and wont get lasik.
>I am looking for orthoK with an oversized zone and have emailed some
>doctors.
| |
| Ragnar 2006-07-11, 8:26 am |
| Nobody ever said it was 100% perfect. It's more perfect than any
other surgery there has ever been though.
Whatever numbers you choose... the risks are virtually insignificant
compoared to the benefits.
On 10 Jul 2006 19:39:38 -0700, "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>serebel wrote:
>
>
>
>Doesnt mean its (always) false either. If he said lasik made him grow a
>third eye then id call it bull. Whats so hard to believe that lasik
>isnt 100% perfect? No type of surgury in the world is perfect. You
>never offer condolences for those with lasik outcomes less fortunate
>than yours.
| |
| Ragnar 2006-07-11, 8:26 am |
| Ace wouldn't bother me so much if he believed everything he read on
the web... The problem is.. he seems to only believe the negative crap
that oozes from lunatics such as Keller and Burch.
On 10 Jul 2006 20:02:30 -0700, "serebel" <serebel@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Ace wrote:
>
>
> Nothing is 100% perfect. I never said anything was. I don't believe
>everything on the web as you do. Actual life experience and education
>makes me a healthy skeptic.
|
| |
|
|