Lasik Eyes Surgery - People speak out against lasik here!

Author

People speak out against lasik here!

Ace

2006-08-30, 9:33 pm

BARNARD CLASSICS speaks out against lasik!

BARNARD CLASSICS

Well, duh, of course LASIK "works." It works extremely well at two
things, in particular:

1) LASIK permanently damages tens of thousands of eyes, and
permanently ruins tens of thousands of lives.

2) LASIK makes truckloads of money for laser manufacturers, surgeons,
optometrists, spectacle manufacturers, CL manufacturers, eye drop
manufacturers, drug manufacturers, psychotherapists, morticians, etc.

Sadly, LASIK isn't always successful. Some lucky patients do manage to

escape with relatively few complications. If LIP, DIP and RIP had
their way, "enhancements" would be mandatory until "success" was
achieved.

LASIKtruth speaks out the truth!

Yes, LASIK is predictable. It damages eyes 100% of the time. Whether
your
life will be completely devastated by the procedure or you'll just lose

contrast sensitivity and rack up some corneal nerve damage is not
completely
predictable. But damage to the eye is a certainty.

You were lucky so far, Serebel. Lots of people have their vision
permanently trashed and end
up with eye pain to boot. Dry eye is miserable.

You could still wind up with problems down the road. You could a
corneal
scratch and get DLK in that interface that never heals, you could have
a
traumatic flap amputation, your intraocular pressure could destroy your

weakened cornea over time and you could wind up with a corneal
transplant.
As you age and your eyes start to dry naturally you may really miss
having a
normal corneal nerve density. Could be very painful.

No. Absolutely correct. Nerve damage is a certainty and the corneal
integrity never restores itself. The LASIK flap never heals. You'll
have an
interface ( a split in your cornea) for the rest of your life. A split
cornea is very fragile. Who needs that. Eye damage!

Eyes aren't damaged to begin with. They may have some 'sphere', that is
they
may be focus in front or behind the retina. They may have some
astigmatism.
But they don't have induced higher order aberrations, a thinned
weakened
cornea, diminished corneal nerve density, increased floaters and the
host of
other miseries that LASIK can induce.

The least aberrated eyes you're going to have are your pre-LASIK eyes.
After
surgery, you have severed nerves, a flap that will never heal and
induced
aberrations. Yes, you.

(CHip) wrote in message

> < big cut>
> It seems the complication rate is determined by the doctors who decide
> what a complication is. When I was 20:20 after LASIK, the surgeon
> called me a success, although I could no longer drive after dark. If
> night vision problems or higher order aberations or loss of contrast
> sensitivity are ignored because they do not show up on the Snellen
> chart, then the doctor gets to claim a 95% success rate.

You are not alone. I have noticed that LASIK patients at SE and other
patient sites have 20:20 to 20:40 vision said the same thing. Their
doctors considered them a success even though they can hardly drive
after dark. Some of them can drive at night only with the help of RGP
contact lenses because eyeglasses are not helping much due to the
abnormal shape of the cornea after surgery. The 95% success rate is
just a marketing ploy to lure the unsuspected, ignorant or desperate
patients who seem to be led to believe that LASIK is a low risk
surgery with minimal long term complications.

By the way, the already obsolete RK (Radial Keratomy)also had a "high
success rate" based on Snellen chart and also had a very "high
customer satisfaction rate" according to the doctors, and also had
many "postive testimonies" from patients at the early stage after
surgery. "Many patients considered RK a miracle". Unfortunately, not
until RK phase out, the patients can finally confirmed or at least not
denied by doctors that RK do have "severe" complications, such as
starburst, hyperopic shift, loss of contrast, etc. Almost all RK
patients have "night vision problems" due to pupil size which was
being downplayed or ignored by their doctors.

This forum is full of slick refractive surgery salespersons. BUYER
BEWARE!

Why are you so pro??? Really, I am not interested in anti or pro. I am
just interested in finding the truths about selective refractive eye
surgeries. If some of the truths turn out to be uncomfortable, then
let it be. I'd like to see the potential patients be well-informed and
not misinformed. With that said, it's unfortunate that people almost
always prefer comfortable lies than uncomfortable truths.

lasik advocate with flap melt speaks out!

The downside risk is very severe. Would you take these kind of
chances with someone you care about like your children? siblings?
parents? Some of the so called risks are really things that happen
100% of the time. The eye never heals the same. There's some degree
of vision quality loss.

If it was me, I'd wait until I was absolutely sure this was the best
possible technology that will be available within the next few years.
Ask: Is this the best possible technology that will be available by
2007? If they can't or won't answer that question, then wait. If
they answer anything you can't understand, ask them to say yes or no.
If they say anything except no, then they're lying.

"The possibility of things going wrong" well. . . you don't have the
true "picture".

"there are a gazillion things that" can go wrong with eye surgery and
even if things go right (at least according to the Doctor) it can
damage you for life. There's no way it's worth the risk based on your
concerns. Your concerns are very legitimate, but there are people who
will tell you not to worry about it that it will never happen to you
(then what if it does?).

I call it aberrated tunnel vision- like looking through a tunnel where
outside the center is distorted. Then, from more than a few inches
away the aberrations outside the tunnel effect the entire visual
field.

Don't do it. If you don't regret it right away, you'll regret it
after you're older (45, 60 who knows). 40% of RK surgeries (they
knew, but kept doing it)result in far sightedness according to one
poster here. Also search for ectasia lasik.

"Dryness, hazy vision in dim light, and night glare occur after EVERY
LASIK procedure. "

The lasers are accurate to .25D, but LASIK is highly inaccurate and
you are more likely to have less vision quality afterwards than
before. I can provide references. Just from what I read- I'm not a
doc.

Ragnar

2006-08-31, 2:34 am

Pure classic nonsense

On 30 Aug 2006 19:17:49 -0700, "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote:

>BARNARD CLASSICS speaks out against lasik!
>
>
>BARNARD CLASSICS
>
>Well, duh, of course LASIK "works." It works extremely well at two
>things, in particular:
>
>
>1) LASIK permanently damages tens of thousands of eyes, and
>permanently ruins tens of thousands of lives.
>
>
>2) LASIK makes truckloads of money for laser manufacturers, surgeons,
>optometrists, spectacle manufacturers, CL manufacturers, eye drop
>manufacturers, drug manufacturers, psychotherapists, morticians, etc.
>
>
>Sadly, LASIK isn't always successful. Some lucky patients do manage to
>
>escape with relatively few complications. If LIP, DIP and RIP had
>their way, "enhancements" would be mandatory until "success" was
>achieved.
>
>
>
>LASIKtruth speaks out the truth!
>
>
>Yes, LASIK is predictable. It damages eyes 100% of the time. Whether
>your
>life will be completely devastated by the procedure or you'll just lose
>
>contrast sensitivity and rack up some corneal nerve damage is not
>completely
>predictable. But damage to the eye is a certainty.
>
>You were lucky so far, Serebel. Lots of people have their vision
>permanently trashed and end
>up with eye pain to boot. Dry eye is miserable.
>
>You could still wind up with problems down the road. You could a
>corneal
>scratch and get DLK in that interface that never heals, you could have
>a
>traumatic flap amputation, your intraocular pressure could destroy your
>
>weakened cornea over time and you could wind up with a corneal
>transplant.
>As you age and your eyes start to dry naturally you may really miss
>having a
>normal corneal nerve density. Could be very painful.
>
>No. Absolutely correct. Nerve damage is a certainty and the corneal
>integrity never restores itself. The LASIK flap never heals. You'll
>have an
>interface ( a split in your cornea) for the rest of your life. A split
>cornea is very fragile. Who needs that. Eye damage!
>
>Eyes aren't damaged to begin with. They may have some 'sphere', that is
>they
>may be focus in front or behind the retina. They may have some
>astigmatism.
>But they don't have induced higher order aberrations, a thinned
>weakened
>cornea, diminished corneal nerve density, increased floaters and the
>host of
>other miseries that LASIK can induce.
>
>The least aberrated eyes you're going to have are your pre-LASIK eyes.
>After
>surgery, you have severed nerves, a flap that will never heal and
>induced
>aberrations. Yes, you.
>
>
>
>(CHip) wrote in message
>
>
>
>You are not alone. I have noticed that LASIK patients at SE and other
>patient sites have 20:20 to 20:40 vision said the same thing. Their
>doctors considered them a success even though they can hardly drive
>after dark. Some of them can drive at night only with the help of RGP
>contact lenses because eyeglasses are not helping much due to the
>abnormal shape of the cornea after surgery. The 95% success rate is
>just a marketing ploy to lure the unsuspected, ignorant or desperate
>patients who seem to be led to believe that LASIK is a low risk
>surgery with minimal long term complications.
>
>By the way, the already obsolete RK (Radial Keratomy)also had a "high
>success rate" based on Snellen chart and also had a very "high
>customer satisfaction rate" according to the doctors, and also had
>many "postive testimonies" from patients at the early stage after
>surgery. "Many patients considered RK a miracle". Unfortunately, not
>until RK phase out, the patients can finally confirmed or at least not
>denied by doctors that RK do have "severe" complications, such as
>starburst, hyperopic shift, loss of contrast, etc. Almost all RK
>patients have "night vision problems" due to pupil size which was
>being downplayed or ignored by their doctors.
>
>
>This forum is full of slick refractive surgery salespersons. BUYER
>BEWARE!
>
>
>Why are you so pro??? Really, I am not interested in anti or pro. I am
>just interested in finding the truths about selective refractive eye
>surgeries. If some of the truths turn out to be uncomfortable, then
>let it be. I'd like to see the potential patients be well-informed and
>not misinformed. With that said, it's unfortunate that people almost
>always prefer comfortable lies than uncomfortable truths.
>
>
>
>lasik advocate with flap melt speaks out!
>
>
>The downside risk is very severe. Would you take these kind of
>chances with someone you care about like your children? siblings?
>parents? Some of the so called risks are really things that happen
>100% of the time. The eye never heals the same. There's some degree
>of vision quality loss.
>
>
>If it was me, I'd wait until I was absolutely sure this was the best
>possible technology that will be available within the next few years.
>Ask: Is this the best possible technology that will be available by
>2007? If they can't or won't answer that question, then wait. If
>they answer anything you can't understand, ask them to say yes or no.
>If they say anything except no, then they're lying.
>
>
>
>"The possibility of things going wrong" well. . . you don't have the
>true "picture".
>
>"there are a gazillion things that" can go wrong with eye surgery and
>even if things go right (at least according to the Doctor) it can
>damage you for life. There's no way it's worth the risk based on your
>concerns. Your concerns are very legitimate, but there are people who
>will tell you not to worry about it that it will never happen to you
>(then what if it does?).
>
>I call it aberrated tunnel vision- like looking through a tunnel where
>outside the center is distorted. Then, from more than a few inches
>away the aberrations outside the tunnel effect the entire visual
>field.
>
>Don't do it. If you don't regret it right away, you'll regret it
>after you're older (45, 60 who knows). 40% of RK surgeries (they
>knew, but kept doing it)result in far sightedness according to one
>poster here. Also search for ectasia lasik.
>
>"Dryness, hazy vision in dim light, and night glare occur after EVERY
>LASIK procedure. "
>
>The lasers are accurate to .25D, but LASIK is highly inaccurate and
>you are more likely to have less vision quality afterwards than
>before. I can provide references. Just from what I read- I'm not a
>doc.