| Author |
lasik and PRK may decrease your vision!
|
|
|
| His story:
Typically everthing I have heard about PRK is great and everybody seems
like they are 20/15 or atleast 20/20. I guess there is always the
exception, which nobody really wants to hear about. I had PRK August
2002, after about 9 months I was about 20/30, but I had lost my best
corrected vision. I was no longer correctable to 20/20 for some
reason...I had a touchup procedure May 2003, and now over 1 year later
I am pretty much 20/30, but only correctable to 20/25.
comments: He was not informed of the risks and bought into the hype.
Surgeons will wildly exaggerate the results but the reality is what he
got as he learned the hard way.
| |
| Tom Lucas 2006-09-20, 8:26 am |
| "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158741547.639225.285970@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> His story:
>
>
> Typically everthing I have heard about PRK is great and everybody
> seems
> like they are 20/15 or atleast 20/20. I guess there is always the
> exception, which nobody really wants to hear about. I had PRK August
> 2002, after about 9 months I was about 20/30, but I had lost my best
> corrected vision. I was no longer correctable to 20/20 for some
> reason...I had a touchup procedure May 2003, and now over 1 year later
> I am pretty much 20/30, but only correctable to 20/25.
>
> comments: He was not informed of the risks and bought into the hype.
> Surgeons will wildly exaggerate the results but the reality is what he
> got as he learned the hard way.
Where does it say he was not informed? Did he not read the consent form
before he signed it, in which case he is a moron? He has 20/30 vision
which is pretty good, correctly to 20/25 which is good too. He has lost
one line of BCVA somehow but there is a small chance that that can
happen. In this case, as with nearly all others, the hype was right and
he has reduced his dependency on glasses.
| |
|
| He is not a happy camper. You too wouldnt be happy if if the vision you
have now was the best you could have. You are getting enhanced to see a
little better. For him, thats gone forever and he misses the crisp
vision of glasses.
| |
| Tom Lucas 2006-09-20, 8:26 am |
| "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158745448.104501.317180@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> He is not a happy camper. You too wouldnt be happy if if the vision
> you
> have now was the best you could have. You are getting enhanced to see
> a
> little better. For him, thats gone forever and he misses the crisp
> vision of glasses.
I am getting enhanced to see a lot better but I am 20/50 not 20/30.
| |
|
|
Tom Lucas wrote:
> "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1158745448.104501.317180@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> I am getting enhanced to see a lot better but I am 20/50 not 20/30.
He got enhanced for 20/30, probably to try and recover the lost line of
BCVA but it didnt help, but didnt hurt things. I have replies to you in
the other threads, check em 
| |
| Tom Lucas 2006-09-20, 8:26 am |
| "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158746724.081364.265090@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> I have replies to you in the other threads, check em
If you used a proper newsreader then it will tell you when replies
appear in other threads.
| |
| serebel 2006-09-20, 9:34 pm |
|
Ace wrote:
> His story:
>
>
> Typically everthing I have heard about PRK is great and everybody seems
> like they are 20/15 or atleast 20/20. I guess there is always the
> exception, which nobody really wants to hear about. I had PRK August
> 2002, after about 9 months I was about 20/30, but I had lost my best
> corrected vision. I was no longer correctable to 20/20 for some
> reason...I had a touchup procedure May 2003, and now over 1 year later
> I am pretty much 20/30, but only correctable to 20/25.
>
> comments: He was not informed of the risks and bought into the hype.
> Surgeons will wildly exaggerate the results but the reality is what he
> got as he learned the hard way.
Why don't you answer the question retard? Where was this person not
informed?
| |
|
| let's see... he had one procedure which didn't turn out and he wasn't happy and
claims he lost BCVA...
so then...
he had another... why?
"Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158741547.639225.285970@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> His story:
>
>
> Typically everthing I have heard about PRK is great and everybody seems
> like they are 20/15 or atleast 20/20. I guess there is always the
> exception, which nobody really wants to hear about. I had PRK August
> 2002, after about 9 months I was about 20/30, but I had lost my best
> corrected vision. I was no longer correctable to 20/20 for some
> reason...I had a touchup procedure May 2003, and now over 1 year later
> I am pretty much 20/30, but only correctable to 20/25.
>
> comments: He was not informed of the risks and bought into the hype.
> Surgeons will wildly exaggerate the results but the reality is what he
> got as he learned the hard way.
>
| |
|
|
Scott wrote:
> let's see... he had one procedure which didn't turn out and he wasn't happy and
> claims he lost BCVA...
> so then...
> he had another... why?
Obviously to try and fix what went wrong the first time. The problem he
had wasnt fixable by enhancement and he may never be 20/20 again. Could
likley be the increase in aberrations decreased his BCVA
| |
| Tom Lucas 2006-09-21, 8:26 am |
| "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158821207.623635.323420@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Scott wrote:
>
>
> Obviously to try and fix what went wrong the first time. The problem
> he
> had wasnt fixable by enhancement and he may never be 20/20 again.
> Could
> likley be the increase in aberrations decreased his BCVA
What type of aberration?
| |
|
|
Tom Lucas wrote:
> "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1158821207.623635.323420@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> What type of aberration?
That wasnt mentioned and he probably doesnt know. He doesnt sound
properly informed of prk, just thought of it as a fix and was left
disapointed
| |
| Tom Lucas 2006-09-21, 8:26 am |
| "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158826665.319945.19280@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Tom Lucas wrote:
>
>
> That wasnt mentioned and he probably doesnt know. He doesnt sound
> properly informed of prk, just thought of it as a fix and was left
> disapointed
Nowhere does it say he was not informed. And if the aberrations weren't
mentioned and he doesn't know then there is certainly not enough
information here to make any conjectures about HOAs (which is what you
are really getting at). Perhaps this guy rubs his eyes all the time?
Perhaps his 20/20 assessment was done at one of these clinics you claim
have doctored their charts and now he is at an honest one he is coming
back 20/30. There are far too many variables to put it all down to HOA
just because it is flavour of the month.
| |
|
|
Tom Lucas wrote:
>
> Nowhere does it say he was not informed. And if the aberrations weren't
> mentioned and he doesn't know then there is certainly not enough
> information here to make any conjectures about HOAs (which is what you
> are really getting at). Perhaps this guy rubs his eyes all the time?
> Perhaps his 20/20 assessment was done at one of these clinics you claim
> have doctored their charts and now he is at an honest one he is coming
> back 20/30. There are far too many variables to put it all down to HOA
> just because it is flavour of the month.
In his story, he considers himself the exception. This clues us in that
he didnt have a good result. We can assume all we want, but one thing
is certain, hes the exception
| |
| serebel 2006-09-21, 9:36 pm |
|
Ace wrote:
> Tom Lucas wrote:
>
> In his story, he considers himself the exception. This clues us in that
> he didnt have a good result. We can assume all we want, but one thing
> is certain, hes the exception
So, why do you say he was not informed? You keep proving what an
idiot that you are.
|
|
|
|