|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > September 2006 > Something the malcontents will not reply to.
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 |
Something the malcontents will not reply to.
|
|
| Ragnar 2006-09-17, 4:29 pm |
| OK malcontents... name one surgery that you don't object to.
If you have a problem with LASIK, you must have a problem with every
surgery.
That being the case, you should really post messages saying that you
are against all surgery of any kind. LASIK is not the issue.
| |
| serebel 2006-09-17, 9:33 pm |
|
You're right, the silence is deafening.
| |
| ycdbsoya 2006-09-18, 4:29 pm |
| I wouldn't object to surgical procedures to reverse Ragweed's and
Serubble's chronic cases of rectocranial inversion.
But then their heads are so far up their asses that they popped back
out on top of their necks, so it is kinda hard to tell what is really
going on there.
Geez, where's Darwin when you really, really need him?
| |
| doctor_my_eye@msn.com 2006-09-18, 4:29 pm |
| O.K., I'll take the bait on this one. It is easy to object to LASIK
and not object to any other surgery.
Most surgery serves a purposae of saving your life or fixing
something that is broken. LASIK doesn't save your life, and it takes
the healthy cornea AND RUINS IT in order to STOP WEARING EYEGLASSES.
There is NEVER a medical necessity for LASIK. LASIK exists to appeal
to the vanity of the individual who doesn't like the way his/her face
looks in the mirror with glasses on.
If I invented a surgery that saved lives, and had 95% success, I would
win a Nobel Prize.
If I invented LASIK, which has "95% success", I would be dealing with a
half million disabled people worldwide that had a bad LASIK result.
Think of that..since there have been 10 million LASIK surgeries so far,
and 5% seem to hate their results, we are talking about 500 thousand
disabled people.
Bausch and Lomb pulled Renu solution off the market when 17 known cases
of fusarium keratitis occurred. Just 17 lost eyes stopped a
half-billion a year business dead in its tracks.
How long will it be until the 500 thousand miserable LASIK casualties
will get the same attention that those 17 fusaium cases got? OOPs, I
forgot...no one ever signed a consent form to get fusarium. The bad
LASIK victim signed on the dotted line and is now considered
responsible for his own disability.
serebel wrote:
> You're right, the silence is deafening.
| |
| Tom Lucas 2006-09-18, 4:29 pm |
| <doctor_my_eye@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1158599975.835433.46330@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> There is NEVER a medical necessity for LASIK. LASIK exists to appeal
> to the vanity of the individual who doesn't like the way his/her face
> looks in the mirror with glasses on.
If you saw my beer-belly and appalling dress sense then there is no way
I could be described as vain.
| |
| serebel 2006-09-18, 9:30 pm |
|
ycdbsoya wrote:
> I wouldn't object to surgical procedures to reverse Ragweed's and
> Serubble's chronic cases of rectocranial inversion.
>
> But then their heads are so far up their asses that they popped back
> out on top of their necks, so it is kinda hard to tell what is really
> going on there.
>
> Geez, where's Darwin when you really, really need him?
Frankie's baaack, and he's off his mellow meds again. And still
obsessed with all things hiney.
| |
| serebel 2006-09-18, 9:30 pm |
|
doctor_my_eye@msn.com wrote:
> O.K., I'll take the bait on this one. It is easy to object to LASIK
> and not object to any other surgery.
>
> Most surgery serves a purposae of saving your life or fixing
> something that is broken. LASIK doesn't save your life, and it takes
> the healthy cornea AND RUINS IT in order to STOP WEARING EYEGLASSES.
> There is NEVER a medical necessity for LASIK. LASIK exists to appeal
> to the vanity of the individual who doesn't like the way his/her face
> looks in the mirror with glasses on.
Lasik can save one's life in a fire emergency. No fumbling for
glasses when you have to get out fast. Again, if lasik ruined corneas,
why then can people see w/o glasses?
>
> If I invented a surgery that saved lives, and had 95% success, I would
> win a Nobel Prize.
> If I invented LASIK, which has "95% success", I would be dealing with a
> half million disabled people worldwide that had a bad LASIK result.
> Think of that..since there have been 10 million LASIK surgeries so far,
> and 5% seem to hate their results, we are talking about 500 thousand
> disabled people.
Please, if there were 500,000 disabled from lasik, the media would be
all over it.
It would have been stopped long ago.
>
> Bausch and Lomb pulled Renu solution off the market when 17 known cases
> of fusarium keratitis occurred. Just 17 lost eyes stopped a
> half-billion a year business dead in its tracks.
Which shows how safe and effective laser surgery is. Thanks for
proving that point.
>
> How long will it be until the 500 thousand miserable LASIK casualties
> will get the same attention that those 17 fusaium cases got? OOPs, I
> forgot...no one ever signed a consent form to get fusarium. The bad
> LASIK victim signed on the dotted line and is now considered
> responsible for his own disability.
Again another falsehood perpetrated by one who's income would benefit
by a ban of RS.
| |
|
| <doctor_my_eye@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1158599975.835433.46330@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> O.K., I'll take the bait on this one. It is easy to object to LASIK
> and not object to any other surgery.
>
> Most surgery serves a purposae of saving your life or fixing
> something that is broken. LASIK doesn't save your life, and it takes
> the healthy cornea AND RUINS IT in order to STOP WEARING EYEGLASSES.
SNIP
ya right... tell me all these have no compications
* Aesthetic Vaginoplasty
* Ambulatory Phlebectomy
* Antioxidant Facial
* Arm Lift
* Blepharoplasty (Eyelid Surgery)
* BOTOX® Cosmetic Injection
* Breast Augmentation (Breast Implants) and 24-hour recovery program
* Breast Lift (Mastopexy)
* Breast Reduction (Mammoplasty)
* Buttock Contouring
* Calf Implants
* Cheek Lift
* Chemical Wash/Peel
* Collagen Injection
* Deep Pore Cleansing
* Ear Procedures (Otoplasty)
* Face Lift (Rhytidectomy)
* Facial Contouring (Facial Implants)
* Fat Transfer
* Flourescent Pulsed Light
* Fraxel Laser Treatment
* Gluteal Lift (Butt Lift)
* Gynecomastia
* Hymenoplasty
* Injectable Treatments
* Labia Reduction (Labioplasty)
* Laser Vaginal RenewalT
* Laser Hair Removal
* Lip Augmentation
* Liposhifting
* Liposuction (Body Contouring)
* Microdermabrasion
* Mid-Body Lift
* Mid-Face Lift
* Neck Lift
* Nose Job (Rhinoplasty)
* Pectoral Implants
* Portrait PSR3
* RadianceT Injection
* RestylaneT Injection
* Sclerotherapy
* Skin Evaluation
* TCA Peel (Tetrachloric Acid)
* ThermageT
* Thigh Lift
* Tummy Tuck & Mini-Tummy Tuck
* Waxing
| |
| Ragnar 2006-09-19, 8:29 am |
| I am amazed that you posted this Minarik.
By the way.. its not purposae.. it is purpose..
If you were a medical doctor, which you are not, you would know that
almost all surgeries are elective. Even those that involve a fatal
condition can almost always be treated with drugs instead.
You really shock me by implying that LASIK ruins corneas. You really
should be ashamed of yourself and consider retiring because you are
incompetent.
I'm not trying to be mean to you.. but I seriously think you must have
a mental disorder. You have at times come up with some useful
information and exhibitted impressive knowlege and presented it well.
BUT you have also, as in this case, presented garbage that is very
wrong, misleading, and dangerous. You are a very dangerous
practitioner in that you are unpredictable. It's kind of like having
a doberman pincher as a family pet. It is a great pet to have.. so
lively and smart and playful and alert.. until the day it rips the
face off your kid. No thanks!
I know that you are aware of your mental faults. its time to go back
to refill your meds.
On 18 Sep 2006 10:19:35 -0700, "doctor_my_eye@msn.com"
<doctor_my_eye@msn.com> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>O.K., I'll take the bait on this one. It is easy to object to LASIK
>and not object to any other surgery.
>
> Most surgery serves a purposae of saving your life or fixing
>something that is broken. LASIK doesn't save your life, and it takes
>the healthy cornea AND RUINS IT in order to STOP WEARING EYEGLASSES.
>There is NEVER a medical necessity for LASIK. LASIK exists to appeal
>to the vanity of the individual who doesn't like the way his/her face
>looks in the mirror with glasses on.
>
>If I invented a surgery that saved lives, and had 95% success, I would
>win a Nobel Prize.
>If I invented LASIK, which has "95% success", I would be dealing with a
>half million disabled people worldwide that had a bad LASIK result.
>Think of that..since there have been 10 million LASIK surgeries so far,
>and 5% seem to hate their results, we are talking about 500 thousand
>disabled people.
>
>Bausch and Lomb pulled Renu solution off the market when 17 known cases
>of fusarium keratitis occurred. Just 17 lost eyes stopped a
>half-billion a year business dead in its tracks.
>
>How long will it be until the 500 thousand miserable LASIK casualties
>will get the same attention that those 17 fusaium cases got? OOPs, I
>forgot...no one ever signed a consent form to get fusarium. The bad
>LASIK victim signed on the dotted line and is now considered
>responsible for his own disability.
>serebel wrote:
| |
| Ragnar 2006-09-19, 8:29 am |
| On 18 Sep 2006 16:35:24 -0700, "serebel" <serebel@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> Lasik can save one's life in a fire emergency. No fumbling for
>glasses when you have to get out fast. Again, if lasik ruined corneas,
>why then can people see w/o glasses?
>
Very true.. in fact.. a better example of safety is with water. When
taking a shower, or in the rain or fog, one is blind if they wear
glasses. With lasik, they can see fine. Being blind in the shower
or when walking outdoors in the rain is extremely dangerous. I
personally know of 3 fatal cases of heavy rain that don't have
anything to do with vision but are examples of how vision IS important
in rain. Many years ago, a man who had just moved to this area was
looking for work and applied for a job with my dad. He was to start
working the next Monday. He didn't show up for work. There was a
heavy storm over the weekend, the man's kid went to play in the water
of a ditch on the side of the road.. and got sucked into the storm
pipe.. the father went in to get the kid and was also sucked into the
pipe, both dead. 2 years ago, someone I chatted with daily was
standing on a river bank with his next door neigbor and the neighbor's
18 year old son. It was raining heavily, and the river was higher and
faster than normal.. and had eroded the river bank.. and the riverbank
was soft because of the rain. The weight of the kid on the soft
riverbank caused it to cavein.. the kid was washed down the river and
died.
For someone.. especially a doctor, to imply that good vision is not
vital to preventing thosands of minor accidents in one's lifetime and
probably a few serious accidents is incredible.
Also, there is no question that contact lenses are far more of a
problem than LASIK is.
| |
|
|
Ragnar wrote:
> Very true.. in fact.. a better example of safety is with water. When
> taking a shower, or in the rain or fog, one is blind if they wear
> glasses. With lasik, they can see fine. Being blind in the shower
> or when walking outdoors in the rain is extremely dangerous. I
> personally know of 3 fatal cases of heavy rain that don't have
> anything to do with vision but are examples of how vision IS important
> in rain. Many years ago, a man who had just moved to this area was
> looking for work and applied for a job with my dad. He was to start
> working the next Monday. He didn't show up for work. There was a
> heavy storm over the weekend, the man's kid went to play in the water
> of a ditch on the side of the road.. and got sucked into the storm
> pipe.. the father went in to get the kid and was also sucked into the
> pipe, both dead. 2 years ago, someone I chatted with daily was
> standing on a river bank with his next door neigbor and the neighbor's
> 18 year old son. It was raining heavily, and the river was higher and
> faster than normal.. and had eroded the river bank.. and the riverbank
> was soft because of the rain. The weight of the kid on the soft
> riverbank caused it to cavein.. the kid was washed down the river and
> died.
>
> For someone.. especially a doctor, to imply that good vision is not
> vital to preventing thosands of minor accidents in one's lifetime and
> probably a few serious accidents is incredible.
>
> Also, there is no question that contact lenses are far more of a
> problem than LASIK is.
Were those people who had accidents going without their glasses? It is
their own damn fault then. I know people who got injured going without
glasses. One -9 lady was walking at night and tripped over something on
the sidewalk she didnt even see and scraped her knee bloody. Her
parents scolded her for going without glasses! She probably really
hates glasses but has no choice unless she wants to risk lasik when
shes older.
| |
| Ragnar 2006-09-20, 4:28 pm |
| Ace missed the point completely below... The idea is.. when taking a
shower or in the rain... having glasses is a disaster... you can't see
through lenses that have drops of water hitting them unless you are
Elton John and have windshield wipers.
I just had a disturbing image in my head of Ace taking a shower with
his glasses on..
On 20 Sep 2006 00:41:36 -0700, "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Ragnar wrote:
>
>
>
>Were those people who had accidents going without their glasses? It is
>their own damn fault then. I know people who got injured going without
>glasses. One -9 lady was walking at night and tripped over something on
>the sidewalk she didnt even see and scraped her knee bloody. Her
>parents scolded her for going without glasses! She probably really
>hates glasses but has no choice unless she wants to risk lasik when
>shes older.
| |
| southeasteyecare@hotmail.com 2006-09-20, 9:34 pm |
| Dr. M,
That was an amazing post. Thank you!
| |
| serebel 2006-09-20, 9:34 pm |
|
southeasteyecare@hotmail.com wrote:
> Dr. M,
>
> That was an amazing post. Thank you!
As long as the post has no truth or is a hysterical rant, the flappie
here will kiss your XXX all the way to the asylum.
Interesting how Minarik's points were shown to be faulty to say the
least, he hasn't been back.
| |
|
|
Ragnar wrote:
> Ace missed the point completely below... The idea is.. when taking a
> shower or in the rain... having glasses is a disaster... you can't see
> through lenses that have drops of water hitting them unless you are
> Elton John and have windshield wipers.
>
> I just had a disturbing image in my head of Ace taking a shower with
> his glasses on..
Yes you can. The water is transparent and while it slightly distorts
the view, you can netherless see. If your prescription is low, just
take your glasses off. As for showering, even the blind can do it. I
tried it once, closing my eyes the whole time and it was a success. Ive
left my glasses on a couple times to see what its like and I found I
see better with them on than off but no one needs glasses to shower, it
can be done with your eyes closed!
| |
| serebel 2006-09-21, 9:36 pm |
|
Ace wrote:
>
>
> . As for showering, even the blind can do it. I
> tried it once, closing my eyes the whole time and it was a success. Ive
> left my glasses on a couple times to see what its like and I found I
> see better with them on than off but no one needs glasses to shower, it
> can be done with your eyes closed!
Good for you retard, next, try cooking breakfast with your eyes closed.
| |
|
|
serebel wrote:
> Ace wrote:
>
>
> Good for you retard, next, try cooking breakfast with your eyes closed.
I can do it without my glasses
| |
| doctor_my_eye@msn.com 2006-09-22, 4:28 pm |
| Mister Rebel, sir, I simply fail to answer you or Ragnar when you say
anything that is totally stupid and worthless. That is of course 99%
of your responses.
I stand by my post as a simple statement of facts. I have now
accumulated data on just over 1700 unhappy LASIK patients, and none of
them are the "flappies" that you refer to. Your strategy of trying to
ridicule the opposing voices here is now about 3 years overdone. While
you are working on other conspiract theories, do you also believe that
it was Dick Cheney that flew that plane into the Pentagon?
serebel wrote:
> southeasteyecare@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
> As long as the post has no truth or is a hysterical rant, the flappie
> here will kiss your XXX all the way to the asylum.
> Interesting how Minarik's points were shown to be faulty to say the
> least, he hasn't been back.
| |
| Ragnar 2006-09-22, 9:32 pm |
| You are hopeless Minarik.
You actively go fishing for malcontents.. you don't even seem to
realize that these unhappy malcontents are mostly fakes posting under
numerous aliases. I expect that at least half of those 1700 are
Hanson and Burch.
Even that is irrelevant. First of all.. these 1700 people you speak
of do not exist.. Second of all.. even if they DID exist.. they have
no reason to be unhappy. If they responded to your request for
malcontent feedback.. it is more likely that some irresponsible boob
such as yourself convinced these patients that they have significant
problems that resulted from their lasik.
Meanwhile... lets just estimate how many people wear contact lenses.
5% of those people have significant complaints about those lenses..
which is easily hundreds of thousands of people. Even if your
mythical 1700 people existed.. that is fantastic compared to the
people with contact lens problems.
I happen to like contact lenses. I feel bad that I have to dredge up
some unpleasant contact lens data to put you in your place constantly.
Why don't you just lay down.. stuff an apple in your mouth.. and do
your imitation of a pig at a luau?
I know you have some useful skills and knowlege. I also know that you
are mentaly ill and have diarrhea of the mouth. When you go spouting
your Minarikisms.. you make a total XXX of yourself. You need to
think before you type. One rule you should try to follow is to never
express your opinions. Stick to the facts. Your opinions are quite
absurd.
On 22 Sep 2006 11:40:54 -0700, "doctor_my_eye@msn.com"
<doctor_my_eye@msn.com> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Mister Rebel, sir, I simply fail to answer you or Ragnar when you say
>anything that is totally stupid and worthless. That is of course 99%
>of your responses.
>
>I stand by my post as a simple statement of facts. I have now
>accumulated data on just over 1700 unhappy LASIK patients, and none of
>them are the "flappies" that you refer to. Your strategy of trying to
>ridicule the opposing voices here is now about 3 years overdone. While
>you are working on other conspiract theories, do you also believe that
>it was Dick Cheney that flew that plane into the Pentagon?
>serebel wrote:
| |
| serebel 2006-09-22, 9:32 pm |
|
doctor_my_eye@msn.com wrote:
> Mister Rebel, sir, I simply fail to answer you or Ragnar when you say
> anything that is totally stupid and worthless. That is of course 99%
> of your responses.
It's not 99% of my responses, just a simple vast majority.
>
> I stand by my post as a simple statement of facts. I have now
> accumulated data on just over 1700 unhappy LASIK patients, and none of
> them are the "flappies" that you refer to.
Let's take the 1700 figure as a base. Out of millions, it doesn't
make for a bad surgery at all. Quite the opposite, it makes for an
effective and predictable surgery.
> Your strategy of trying to
> ridicule the opposing voices here is now about 3 years overdone.
I don't ridicule opposing voices, I ridicule lying and irrational
posts and you know it.
> While
> you are working on other conspiract theories, do you also believe that
> it was Dick Cheney that flew that plane into the Pentagon?
It couldn't have been Dick Cheney, he doesn't have a pilot's license.
SErebel
| |
|
|
doctor_my_eye@msn.com wrote:
> Mister Rebel, sir, I simply fail to answer you or Ragnar when you say
> anything that is totally stupid and worthless. That is of course 99%
> of your responses.
>
> I stand by my post as a simple statement of facts. I have now
> accumulated data on just over 1700 unhappy LASIK patients, and none of
> them are the "flappies" that you refer to. Your strategy of trying to
> ridicule the opposing voices here is now about 3 years overdone. While
> you are working on other conspiract theories, do you also believe that
> it was Dick Cheney that flew that plane into the Pentagon?
Dont mind Serebel, Ragnar and the other procontents. They will twist
things their way and are full of excuses. Serebel and his contact lens
excuse. If someone cant tolerate contacts or is unhappy with them, then
they should just stick to glasses. Lasik is elective and no one "needs"
lasik when glasses does a fine(and often better) job of correcting
vision. I dont care the percent unhappy with contacts. I too am unhappy
with contacts but I have glasses and can give orthoK a try.
Lasik damages every eye as you probably already know. while only 10%
are unhappy, you can find most of the happy 90% with *something* to
complain about. My friend had lasik 3 years ago and while she is
"happy" she mentioned her permanent dry eyes and needing drops to this
day as a hassle.
| |
|
| no... you will never try orthok
"Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158988572.502467.287120@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> doctor_my_eye@msn.com wrote:
SNIP
> I too am unhappy
> with contacts but I have glasses and can give orthoK a try.
>
| |
| laserblasted@yahoo.com 2006-09-23, 4:28 pm |
|
Ragnar wrote:
> I am amazed that you posted this Minarik.
> By the way.. its not purposae.. it is purpose..
>
> If you were a medical doctor, which you are not, you would know that
> almost all surgeries are elective. Even those that involve a fatal
> condition can almost always be treated with drugs instead.
Actually, an Optometrist is a doctor - a doctor of Optometry. Then
again, you seem to get pretty much everything wrong, Ragnar.
Perhaps some day someone will elect to treat your abdominal aneurism
with drugs.
> You really shock me by implying that LASIK ruins corneas. You really
> should be ashamed of yourself and consider retiring because you are
> incompetent.
That's a serious accusation to throw out there. If you plan to call a
doctor incompetent, then you need to be able to back that up with some
facts. Dr. Minarik could likely prevail in a defamation suit against
you, and from the sound of it this would be a huge favor to many.
> I'm not trying to be mean to you.. but I seriously think you must have
> a mental disorder. You have at times come up with some useful
> information and exhibitted impressive knowlege and presented it well.
> BUT you have also, as in this case, presented garbage that is very
> wrong, misleading, and dangerous. You are a very dangerous
> practitioner in that you are unpredictable. It's kind of like having
> a doberman pincher as a family pet. It is a great pet to have.. so
> lively and smart and playful and alert.. until the day it rips the
> face off your kid. No thanks!
> I know that you are aware of your mental faults. its time to go back
> to refill your meds.
One should wonder why a patient such as Ragnar who had LASIK years ago
would be hanging around this newsgroup engaging in namecalling. Perhaps
this behavior suggests that Ragnar himself has a mental disorder? It
certainly doesn't suggest normalcy or stabilty. Perhaps Ragnar can't
live with the knowledge that his corneas were ruined and has to attack
this nice Doctor Minarik due to some bizarre psychological defense
mechanism?
| |
| Ragnar 2006-09-23, 4:28 pm |
| he would try orthoK if he could find a doctor who is so unscrupulous
that he will take Ace's money even though there is zero chance of it
being effective in his case. Perhaps Minarik would do it.
On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 15:55:53 GMT, "Scott" <moe__green@msn.com> wrote:
>no... you will never try orthok
>
>"Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1158988572.502467.287120@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
>SNIP
>
>
| |
| serebel 2006-09-23, 9:33 pm |
|
laserblasted@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> That's a serious accusation to throw out there. If you plan to call a
> doctor incompetent, then you need to be able to back that up with some
> facts. Dr. Minarik could likely prevail in a defamation suit against
> you, and from the sound of it this would be a huge favor to many.
>
I see you know as much about tort law as you do lasik.
Ahem: OPINION !!!!!!!!!!!!
You are a flappie dumbass.
|
| |
|
|