Another reason Keller lost her crusade.
Ragnar Suomi
a bad procedure.
By presenting her case this way, she lost all credibility. Six
million happy campers vs 136 malcontents makes those malcontents look
like whackos. I would venture to say that a higher proportion of
people have filed UFO reports than filed lawsuits against LASIK.
Now, if I had been Sandy's lawyer, I would have played up the fact
that LASIK is a nearly miraculous procedure that is the most performed
surgery in the country, and the most predictable, andt the safest.
Then I would present to the judge and jury whatever problems I had and
put the blame on the physician.
By blaming the procedure instead of the actions of the physician, Mad
Dog Keller blew any chance she had of winning.
If she had any brains, she would have determined how many procedures
this surgeon performed, and then found out how many microkeratome
blades he went through in that time period. Those blades cost $50
each and each has an individual serial number. They are to be used
only once. I think the odds are very high that he did many more
procedures than he went through blades.
Perhaps it was God who gave Sandy lousy eyes to begin with, caused the
microkeratome to break, and broke her foot. If that's how God is
treating her, just wait until she gets to spend eternity in hell for
all her lies, deception, and misdeeds. Say "Hi" to Hitler, Uday,
Qusay, Jeffrey Dahmer, Timothy McVeigh, and all those lawyers when you
get there.
VCopelan
>Miss Information has been going on and on.. and on about how LASIK is
>a bad procedure.
>
>By presenting her case this way, she lost all credibility. Six
>million happy campers vs 136 malcontents makes those malcontents look
>like whackos. I would venture to say that a higher proportion of
>people have filed UFO reports than filed lawsuits against LASIK.
>
>Now, if I had been Sandy's lawyer, I would have played up the fact
>that LASIK is a nearly miraculous procedure that is the most performed
>surgery in the country, and the most predictable, andt the safest.
>Then I would present to the judge and jury whatever problems I had and
>put the blame on the physician.
>By blaming the procedure instead of the actions of the physician, Mad
>Dog Keller blew any chance she had of winning.
I must be missing something here. I thought Ms. Keller received a $250,000
settlement or award in her case?
Most of what I've found in the alt.lasik-eyes newsgroups is two equally radical
views of the procedure. One one hand, you find those who have had their vision
damaged by the surgery. At the other extreme, you find posters like
ragnarsuomi who promote LASIK like a bad used car salesman.
Does any intelligent discussion of the pros and cons of this surgery take place
in this newsgroup?
Ragnar Suomi
Miss Keller, and the disciples of SE.
Whether or not Miss Keller ever received $250,000 is a subject of
debate. She has posted forged checks before. Assuming that she got a
$250,000 settlement, then what is this case against her surgeon that
she just lost after a 4 year battle?
I have two likely reasons for that. The first is, she never got the
original $250,000. The second is she did get the $250,000 but then
got sued by the doctor for libel and lost.
Now with her normal level of acumen, she thinks she can appeal a case
where the other party was found not guilty. wheee...
Actually, the doctor can come after her now with no fear of being
sued. He's already been exonerated permanently.
Of further interest is how an SE doctor Yarin was once her mortal
enemy, and then they got along fine... once he decided to cooperate
with her. Gee, I wonder why he did that.
But then again, who cares? Let's get back to an intelligent
discussion of LASIK. What do you want to know about? One danger of
reading this newsgroup is that the most extreme worst cases are
presented as being a thousand times more common than they are.
Dr. Leukoma
news:20030915002440...@mb-m12.aol.com:
> Does any intelligent discussion of the pros and cons of this surgery
> take place in this newsgroup?
Of course it does, except that it is like looking for a needle in a
haystack. Try using your "ignore" feature and you will see discussions of
everything from dry eye to epithelial ingrowth to amblyopia, etc., etc.,
etc.
You are welcome to participate in any one of those discussions.
DrG
VCopelan
>Very little intelligence emananes from this group... mainly due to
>Miss Keller, and the disciples of SE.
>
>Whether or not Miss Keller ever received $250,000 is a subject of
>debate. She has posted forged checks before. Assuming that she got a
>$250,000 settlement, then what is this case against her surgeon that
>she just lost after a 4 year battle?
>
>I have two likely reasons for that. The first is, she never got the
>original $250,000. The second is she did get the $250,000 but then
>got sued by the doctor for libel and lost.
>
>Now with her normal level of acumen, she thinks she can appeal a case
>where the other party was found not guilty. wheee...
In a civil action, nobody is found guilty or not guilty. You must be thinking
about a criminal trial. I assume you mean she didn't prove her physician's
actions amounted to malpractice.
>Actually, the doctor can come after her now with no fear of being
>sued. He's already been exonerated permanently.
So you're saying she didn't prevail in her civil action?
>Of further interest is how an SE doctor Yarin was once her mortal
>enemy, and then they got along fine... once he decided to cooperate
>with her. Gee, I wonder why he did that.
>
>But then again, who cares? Let's get back to an intelligent
>discussion of LASIK. What do you want to know about? One danger of
>reading this newsgroup is that the most extreme worst cases are
>presented as being a thousand times more common than they are.
I would like to know if there are any long term clinical studies of LASIK. I
know they have been doing PRK for some years but LASIK has not been around all
that long. Do the lasers used in LASIK cause any damage to the lens of the
eye? Remember, we are talking about a 190 something nanometer ultraviolet
laser. It's well accepted that ultraviolet light is associated with cataract
creation. I know the lasers used in LASIK are said to be focused but I still
have problems with the concept of a focused laser light because of the nature
of laser light. How much energy is asorbed by the lens?
Most of the people I know who have had LASIK now need reading glasses. They
didn't need them when their vision was corrected with glasses or contacts. Is
there any explaination as to why they need reading glasses after LASIK? I know
most people need reading glasses after their early 40's but it seems that
something else is going on here.
I have seen discussion in journal articles about optic nerve damage from the
increased inner ocular pressure created to cut the flap in LASIK. What does
the research show?
Sandy
> Very little intelligence emananes from this group... mainly due to
> Miss Keller, and the disciples of SE.
First of all, Christopher Clifford Roiland, you have been exposed as
someone who was trying to profit from referring lasik patients to your
surgeon, who is likely not willing to work with you now that you have
libeled several doctors and others on this newsgroup.
>
> Whether or not Miss Keller ever received $250,000 is a subject of
> debate. She has posted forged checks before.
I am not "Miss Keller". I am married, and I am "Mrs. Keller". I never
posted forged checks anywhere. You are a liar. Not only a liar, but
you don't have your facts straight, because my total settlement was
$260,500.00.
Assuming that she got a
> $250,000 settlement, then what is this case against her surgeon that
> she just lost after a 4 year battle?
Okay, clueless one. In California, if a settlement is more than
$30,000, the state board investigates. Since Weinman alone had to pay
out $125,000, he was investigated. What is interesting is that his
own insurance company determined that he was guilty, and avoided the
risk of having a jury hear about his bungling up everything by paying
the settlement.
>
> I have two likely reasons for that. The first is, she never got the
> original $250,000. The second is she did get the $250,000 but then
> got sued by the doctor for libel and lost.
How stupid is that?
>
> Now with her normal level of acumen, she thinks she can appeal a case
> where the other party was found not guilty. wheee...
Well, gee, Christopher, that is how the legal system works. If the
state board has an appeal process, I will use it. If not, I will find
other ways to protect the public from doctors like mine. I've already
forwarded the information to the state attorney general's office. I
will go to the press if nothing else, and explain that the medical
board offers us zero protection from bad docs.
>
> Actually, the doctor can come after her now with no fear of being
> sued. He's already been exonerated permanently.
Come after me for what? I can tell the truth about what happened to
me 24 hours a day on every newsgroup in the world and the law will
back me up. The truth is the truth and Weinman's records document
every bit of the malpractice. The law is not on your side when you
commit libel against me and others time and time again. We have
warned you, and you ignore the warnings. I hope you are friends with
a good defense attorney.
>
> Of further interest is how an SE doctor Yarin was once her mortal
> enemy, and then they got along fine... once he decided to cooperate
> with her. Gee, I wonder why he did that.
That is libel again.
And you want to know something? I was already victorious against
Weinman for my own purposes. I didn't lose this round, which wasn't
for me. This is the public's loss, because a dangerous doctor is out
there cutting eyes, not knowing some crucial tenets of ophthalmology.
I will never have surgery with him again, so this really has no
bearing on me.
Recall your own words:
"I kind of agree. Glenn doesn't accurately portray
LASIK...
Misinformation is bad no matter whether it is pro or
anti LASIK. Glenn would be better off just to keep
his opinions out of it and just present the opinions
of the surgeons he certifies."
"I've been associated with both offices for about 6 months. Not as an
employee though. I will be doing consultant work with them on a
permanet basis. Starting in July, I will probably be working out of
Dr. Petit's office full-time. I didn't decide to do this line of work
because I was looking for a job. I picked it because I see a huge
need to steer people into making good decisions. It will be a big
decrease in money for me to begin with, but I think that in time I can
make it profitable."
Profit for yourself is why you are here. Why don't you take your
laptop, hop on your bicycle and go find yourself a real job doing
something you have some knowledge about?