| Tom Lucas 2006-07-28, 8:29 am |
| "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154021534.621154.265640@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Tom Lucas said:
>
> If a man gets married, he needs to tell her NOT to cut her hair!
You see how far you get telling a wife what to do! All the way to a
friend's house for a couple of nights I would expect!
> Thats up to your surgeon if he feels an enhancement is warrented. Many
> surgeons here wont enhance less than -1 or better than 20/40. The
> other
> thing is I was talking about some people being happy in spite of a
> complication, but they would be ten times happier if their lasik went
> perfect.
I don't think Optical Express have hard and fast limits such as -1 or
20/40 and it more depends on whether they think an enhancement will make
a difference. In my case, I'm damn sure it will because if they zap in
what my glasses are prescribed at then my vision will be near enough
perfect, or at least as perfect as I've ever had.
> How does the FDA and NHS know exactly? Ive seen several bad lasik
> stories where the person said his/her surgeon refused to submit the
> results to the FDA.
I think that the cases of refusal of submissions are rare enough not to
have a serious impact on the statistics. Plus there is the military
statistics that we've already discussed - they have no motive for fudge
the figures. Besides the risks are assessed before FDA approval is
granted and the statistics gathered afterwards are just used to verify
the original approval.
> One lady said her surgeon reported her as a success
> even though her lasik sucked and her vision was terrible. Her surgeon
> removed her from the list of success stories after she threatened to
> sue.
This is just one isolated case though and shouldn't be offered as
evidence that the Lasik industry is a big conspiracy.
> People with bad lasik results claim the true risks are vastly
> under reported. I understand they are not qualified so they can only
> speak about their own bad lasik results but cant speak for anyone
> else.
> Still there are so many bad lasik stories on the internet, its
> disturbing 
There are actually very few bad Lasik stories compared to how many
procedures have been performed. I think the risks are not widely
advertised, as to do so is not in the industries interest, but the
information is readily available if you want to look for it. I don't
think the clinics will hide anything from you (a few rotten apples
aside) because it is not in their interests to have to support a bad
result.
> Thats possible. All that I know is this lady wrote in her story that
> she warned over 50 people and two changed their mind, got lasik and
> ruined their eyes. Could be an incompetent surgeon, which in this
> case,
> he should be sued and his license terminated. Could be anything, the
> story didnt mention except the fact those two women had a bad lasik
> experience.
This is what I mean about being careful with internet stories because
they normally only present half the information because there is some
axe to grind. The story is written to imply that Lasik will definitely
destroy your eye and that the malcontents were right all along but any
information which might disprove that is conveniently left out.
Personally, if I had come across this story, I would have discarded it
immediately as biased, of questionable origin and misleading.
> How many people do you know who got lasik and do any have permanent
> complications?
I personally know two people and know four friends of friends who have
had it done. All had absolutely no problems except me and the
undercorrection.
> There is a correlationship between diopters of myopia and snellen
> score. It will vary slightly depending on the individual but one thing
> is constant, more myopia means more blur. Im not talking about
> something like -3.25 vs. -3.5 where the difference is small or even
> none due to other factors. Optometrists keep things as constant as
> possible and eliminate the biggest factors so they get a very good
> ballpark with only minor varience. Comparing diopters of myopia for
> *that* particular individual is what matters most. That particular
> individual can get a ballpark idea and estimate by comparing others,
> but he can find out exactly by having it measured himself.
Well that was my pretty much my point. The actual dioptre/snellen link
is individual. You can get a ball park from other people but it is
sometimes dangerous. My eyes were -0.5 and -0.75 (I reckon they are back
to -1 now) so by rights I should see 20/40 but I certainly do not and if
I were to base my enhancement decision on that then I would be mistaken.
> I would be happy if I can improve to
> even -3.5(or less is better!) as its so much better and I wont be so
> "blind" without glasses. Thanks for your replies, ive learned so much
> and anyone lurking and reading this will obtain swarms of knowlege 
I forget what is was like to be at -3.5 which I would have been when I
was about 14 or 15 if my eyes deteriorated linearly. I can remember
being able to see what I was doing in the swimming pool but when I
was -5 then I could see practically nothing. I guess slightly less blind
is OK but it really is great to be able to go about most of my day
without glasses - I haven't put mine on since Sunday night and that was
to drive. Even with the less that ideal result then I would still
recommend Lasik, which I think is one of the main points we've discussed
in this thread and one that will perhaps be of most use to the lurkers.
The other has been the readers issue but I think that will depend on the
individual and the trends in his/her locality.
> I sent you an email again, did you not recieve it? Reply to that email
> with your AIM screename. I have provided mine in the email. I will be
> online almost constantly and will check to see if you are on at 4-5pm
> my time.
I didn't get on the PC last night because I was made to go to a barbeque
where most of the guests were maths teachers :-( I don't think my screen
name is particularly sensitive so I can tell you it's TomLucasB. Seeing
as it's Friday tonight then I think I'm getting dragged somewhere by the
girlfriend (I wanted to go to the pub) but I should find a bit of time
to logon before I go - likely about 19:30 to 20:00 which will be 16:30
to 17:00 your time which should fit in.
|