Brent Hanson of LasikFraud "endorses" Dallas Refractive Surgeon
Glenn - USAEyes.org
The more I read, the more I am amazed. Visit
http://www.lasiksucks4u.com/images/hansondocs.pdf and you will see
that Brent Hanson thinks so highly of a particular Dallas refractive
surgeon he is willing to publish nasty things about his doctor's
competitor and even threaten his doctor's competitor with physical
violence.
According to the cited documents published at Dominic Morgan's
website, Dallas surgeon William Boothe, MD - who is a competitor of
Hanson's doctor - had complained to Ariel Berschadsky that Berschadsky
is publishing medical malpractice lawsuit information on Berschadsky's
LasikInfoCenter.com website, but ignoring similar malpractice claims
of other Dallas area doctors, including Brent Hanson's doctor.
If you don't already know, Ariel Berschadsky is an attorney who uses
LasikInfoCenter.com to generate malpractice referrals and is a "buddy"
of Brent Hanson, even representing Hanson when Hanson published
private email messages obtained from an ophthalmology group's private
forum.
According to the documents, Brent Hanson was so upset after learning
that Dr. Boothe had asked for more balanced representation that would
include publishing malpractice litigation information abut Hanson's
doctor, that Hanson started publishing all sorts of things about Dr.
Booth on Hanson's LasikFraud.com website, in the alt.lasik-eyes
newsgroup, and at a new website created specifically to publish
(misrepresent?) less than flattering information about Dr. Booth. The
documents show that Hanson was required as a part of the litigation's
settlement to agree to not come within 500 feet of Dr. Boothe, the
doctor's family, staff, offices, home, and even his attorneys.
So who is this Dallas refractive surgeon that Hanson thinks so highly
of that he will risk defamation to protect? Who is the refractive
surgeon that Brent Hanson believes is so excellent? Well, I'm not
going to promote guilt by association, so you would need to look at
the documents yourself.
It appears to me from Brent Hanson's acts - to the point of requiring
legal action by Dr. Boothe - that there is at least one refractive
surgeon that Brent Hanson will "endorse".
If you are in the Dallas area and considering refractive surgery, you
may (or may not) want to consider the doctor Hanson "endorses". I
would highly recommend that you use the 50 Tough Questions For Your
Doctor at http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/tough_questions.htm to evaluate a
potential doctor - even if Hanson is willing to threaten physical
violence to protect his reputation.
You can also go to Ariel Berschadsky's website to see malpractice
information about Hanson's doctor. Odd that this information is still
there.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
"Consider and Choose With Confidence"
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.com
certifications to LASIK surgeons. Unfortunately, Glenn Hagele is not
really a patient advocate -- he actually provides marketing services to
LASIK surgeons and companies, all designed to fool the public into
thinking that the LASIK industry does a good job of policing itself.
Part of Glenn Hagele's job is to patrol internet forums to promote
LASIK, and to discredit patients who have had bad outcomes, which he
does with great zeal. Glenn Hagele's attitude toward LASIK patients is
revealed when he makes such statements as:
I equate SurgicalEyes to a ant on the ass of a cow I pass by going 50
in my sports car.
But what about the CRSQA certification -- is it any good? The fact is
that Glenn Hagele is known for having certified and defending one of
the most notorious LASIK surgeon in the industry. That surgeon's name
is Dr. Glenn Kawesch.
Dr. Glenn Kawesch has been certified by Glenn Hagele.
http://www.lasikfraud.com/crsqa/glenn_kawesch_01.pdf
Dr. Glenn Kawesch has been accused by the California Attorney General
of engaging in dishonest and corrupt acts, altering medical records,
and fabricating various test results.
http://www.lasikfraud.com/crsqa/glenn_kawesch_02.pdf
Dr. Glenn Kawesch has come under suspicion by the IRS for tax fraud.
http://www.lasikfraud.com/crsqa/glenn_kawesch_03.pdf
Dr. Glenn Kawesch pleaded guilty to "evading $4.2 million in federal
taxes through sham contracts and schemes stretching from Ireland to the
West Indies". http://www.lasikfraud.com/crsqa/kawesch_faces_prison.pdf
Dr. Glenn Kawesch has had an extraordinary number of malpractice
lawsuits filed against him. Here is an partial list of some of the
malpractice cases that have been filed against Dr. Glenn Kawesch.
Case Category Filing Date
GIC774078 Medical Malpractice September 7, 2001
GIC787221 Malpractice April 24, 2002
GIC764982 Malpractice April 2, 2001
GIC779106 Fraud December 4, 2001
GIC793085 Medical Malpractice July 25, 2002
GIC724772 Malpractice October 7, 1998
GIC753609 Medical Malpractice August 25, 2000
GIC764538 Medical Malpractice March 26, 2001
GIC748269 Malpractice May 16, 2000
GIC753043 Malpractice August 15, 2000
GIC782738 Medical Malpractice February 6, 2002
N79316 Malpractice September 30,
1998
727331 Malpractice January 15, 1999
728995 Malpractice March 15, 1999
728997 Malpractice March 15, 1999
729568 Negligence April 2, 1999
GIC743137 Malpractice February 8, 2000
GIC757257 Medical Malpractice November 1, 2000
GIC760421 Medical Malpractice January 8, 2001
GIC775955 Medical Malpractice October 10, 2001
GIC787421 Medical Malpractice April 26, 2002
GIC788174 Medical Malpractice May 8, 2002
GIC789393 Medical Malpractice May 29, 2002
GIC794779 Medical Malpractice August 22, 2002
GIC768248 Medical Malpractice May 31, 2001
Glenn Hagele continued to publicly defend Dr. Kawesch with the
following published statements:
September 10, 2002
According to the National Practitioners Data Base, Dr. Kawesch has had
fewer than eight paid malpractice claims of $30,000 or more during his
entire career. According to Dr. Kawesch and affirmed by the California
Medical Board, Dr. Kawesch has provided more than 30,000 refractive
surgeries. When we require that not more than one in 500 patients
could
have a successful malpractice suit of over $30k, that would mean as
many as 60 successful claims could be made against someone who has
provided as much surgery as Dr. Kawesch.
September 12, 2002
Dr. Kawesch did not have his license restricted during this hearing
last
month and that the ALJ found the sight of all subject patients had
actually
improved since the surgeries. A full hearing to evaluate all details
is
tentatively scheduled for January.
October 11, 2002
It is reasonable to expect that a doctor who has performed
20,000-30,000
surgeries will make mistakes and will have successful malpractice
lawsuits.
I don't know about you, but I know I can't really be expected to do
something 30,000 times and never make a mistake.
Glenn Hagele finally gave up on defending the indefensible:
March 30, 2003
This doctor is not certified by our organization.
Glenn - USAEyes.org
(again).
Here are just a few of the times I have responded to Brent Hanson of
LasikFraud regarding his gross misrepresentation of the facts
regarding Glenn Kawesch, MD.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z53612F5C
Glenn Kawesch was certified by our organization because he met our
requirements. Later, he no longer met those requirements and was
decertified. A year and a half after our organization had decertified
Dr. Kawesch, the Medical Board of California removed his license to
practice medicine.
This is a very good example how our quarterly re-evaluation is
important. If a doctor no longer meets our standards, s/he is no
longer certified.
BTW, the medical board in November 2005 evacuated its removal of Dr.
Kawesch's medical license. He is again practicing in San Diego, but he
is not a CRSQA Certified Refractive Surgeon.
Glenn - USAEyes.org
(again).
Here are just a few of the times I have responded to Brent Hanson of
LasikFraud regarding his gross misrepresentation of the facts
regarding Glenn Kawesch, MD.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z53612F5C
Glenn Kawesch was certified by our organization because he met our
requirements. Later, he no longer met those requirements and was
decertified. A year and a half after our organization had decertified
Dr. Kawesch, the Medical Board of California removed his license to
practice medicine.
This is a very good example how our quarterly re-evaluation is
important. If a doctor no longer meets our standards, s/he is no
longer certified.
BTW, the medical board in November 2005 evacuated its removal of Dr.
Kawesch's medical license. He is again practicing in San Diego, but he
is not a CRSQA Certified Refractive Surgeon.
Glenn Hagele
Glenn Kawesch, MD
misinformation about me that has been thrown around on this newsgroup.
Glenn Hagele has been torn apart for his decision to certify me as a
CRSQA surgeon. Frankly, he should be torn apart for trying to appease
some of you by bragging about decertifying me. His organization is
responsible for setting standards and certifying surgeons that meet or
exceed those standards IN SURGICAL SKILLS AND SURGICAL DECISION MAKING.
His organization is not and should not be in the business of
evaluating the personal lives of surgeons. I was certified by him
because I possess outstanding surgical skills and excellent clinical
judgment. I feel that the only reason Hagele decertified me was to
pacify the people in this forum. If he is truly concerned with
evaluating surgical skill and clinical judgment, he should reinstate me
immediately.
I did evade income taxes. This was a huge mistake that has cost me both
personally and professionally and one which I truly regret. It does
not, however, make me a bad surgeon. I challenge everyone on this
newsgroup to look at themselves and all of the decisions and actions
that they have made in their personal lives (including their tax
returns). Do the poor decisions and indiscretions in your lives make
you bad at your career? Do they make you someone who clients should
avoid? I would think not. Even the medical board has admitted that the
tax issue had nothing to do with the quality of care in my practice.
Candis Cohen, spokeswoman for the California Medical Board said in the
May 20, 2004 issue of the San Diego Union-Tribune, "There is no
evidence that his acts affected patient care."
As far as my medical practice, 3 judges and the medical board have now
stated that there are no quality of care concerns. Brett Hansen says
"Dr. Glenn Kawesch has been accused by the California Attorney
General of engaging in dishonest and corrupt acts, altering medical
records, and fabricating various test results." Judge Roy W. Hewitt
found in November 2003, "[Kawesch] was not involved in billing for
services not rendered, rendering unnecessary procedures, Medicare
Fraud, Medi-Cal fraud or any other type insurance fraud, or dishonest
acts related to patient care." The medical board adopted this finding
by the judge.
Hansen also says, "Dr. Glenn Kawesch has had an extraordinary number
of malpractice lawsuits filed against him." I have never lost a case
that has gone to court. Judge Hewitt wrote, "[Kawesch] has performed
over 33,000 refractive surgeries without a single proven incident, in
the present proceedings, of any substandard care. Additionally,
[Kawesch] has no record of any other disciplinary proceedings or
administrative actions against his license during his 17 years as a
licentiate. Such an unblemished record indicates that as far as quality
of patient care, surgical skill, medical practice and ability, and the
proper exercise of sound clinical judgment are concerned, [Kawesch]
rates an A+ (outstanding)." I decided to try to atone for my tax
evasion by helping the IRS go after the attorneys and accountants that
put together these tax avoidance strategies. I worked undercover for
them for almost 2 years. During that time, I was not able to fight
malpractice cases because that could have jeopardized my undercover
work. I had to settle cases that had no merit. Malpractice attorneys
quickly realized this and "piled on". The cases settled fall into
this 2 year period. Cases that I could fight, I won.
As to the claims on these newsgroups that I am greedy, Hewitt wrote,
"[Kawesch] has a long history of donating money, time, and services to
civic and charitable organizations. [He] donated free surgeries to
silent auctions for hospitals, schools, church functions, etc. [He] has
also volunteered to perform free refractive surgery on military heroes
returning from the Gulf War and Iraq."
If Hagele is looking to find the best surgeons, he should listen when
Judge Hewitt says that very few practices could withstand the scrutiny
brought to mine and come through with such flying colors. In fact,
Hewitt wrote, "given the unwarranted, adverse publicity this case
generated there can be no doubt that any current or former patient with
any type complaint against [Kawesch] would have come forward. In fact,
[the Medical Board] even went so far as to solicit patient complaints."
He also said, "[Kawesch] has done over 33,000 refractive procedures
on over 22,000 separate patients. Of those 22,000+ patients, only 16
formed the basis of the instant accusations against [Kawesch]. Of
those 16 cases, CASES THAT WERE SUBJECTED TO EXTREME, METICULOUS,
SCRUTINY; none were found herein to have involved any negligence
whatsoever. In each and every case, [Kawesch's] care and treatment
was exceptional. Additionally, [Kawesch] did not charge for
enhancement procedures and in some cases he refunded all, or most of
the fees paid by every unhappy patient even though the patients
benefited from [Kawesch's] services. [Kawesch] has exhibited
outstanding surgical ability and has exercised excellent clinical
judgment in his care and treatment of his patients. [I] have no
"quality of care" concerns about [Kawesch] whatsoever; he is a
consummate refractive surgeon."
I am happy to stand up and take criticism for mistakes I have made
including my tax evasion. I will not stand by while false and
defamatory statements are made about me as a surgeon. I would hope
that Hagele would do what he and his organization claim to do and that
is point people in the direction of good surgeons. If he cares about
good surgery and not just people saying nice things about him in this
forum, he should reinstate me in CRSQA and stand up to the critics.
Otherwise, his critics are correct that he is not trying to certify the
best surgeons.
Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.com
You spell my name as "Brett Hansen" when in fact the correct spelling is
"Brent Hanson". This should give any patient pause to think before they let
you adjust the controls on your laser before you fry their corneas.
I hope that Glenn Hagele does NOT reinstate your CRSQA "certification".
Here's why: I have planned out a three year project to publish every single
legal complaint filed against CRSQA "certified" surgeon in the country.
This means going to the court house, retrieving the complaints, converting
to full text to feed into the search engines, and publishing them on
multiple web sites. If he reinstates your "certification", this could throw
a monkey wrench into my plan and turn it into a SIX year project.
On the other hand, I may as well go ahead and publish the lawsuits against
you anyway.
Brent Hanson
"Glenn Kawesch, MD" <gkaw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136146214.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Trulyt...@yahoo.com
for CRSQA. The fact that so many patients WANTED to sue him, in
addition to the income tax evasion make it clear he belongs in the
CRSQA fraternity... with the likes of Robert Maloney. He's a perfect
fit.
Awww, take him back Glenn. Nobody says nice things about you on this
board anyway so that shouldn't be a consideration.
There are probably hordes of prospective patients out there that would
love to have their eyes slashed and burned by a tax cheat.
Glenn Kawesch, MD
would love to talk with you about your goal with these postings. Are
you against all refractive surgery or just certain surgeons? I would
be happy to address any issues that you have with me either privately
or in this forum. I love what I do and I try very hard to do it well.
Glenn Kawesch, MD
Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.com
Trulyt...@yahoo.com
There is no such thing as a 'good' LASIK procedure. The creation of a
LASIK flap was a very bad idea - as you know, corneal integrity is
never restored and LASIK patients have a flap for life. It would be
hard to convince anyone that a flap interface does not compromise the
optics of the cornea. I often wonder if the 'daysparkles' LASIK
patients see are
a result of abnormal refraction across the flap interface.
Are you aware and do you INFORM your patients that so called 'custom'
or 'wavefront' treatments actually introduce distortions in the cornea
that cannot be corrected with glasses ... they just induce fewer
distortions than conventional LASIK?
Do you have any CONCEPTION of the magnitude of the effects of
distortions (that are surgically introduced by PRK and LASIK) as the
pupil enlarges in dim light? Here's a reference and excerpt for you:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pupillary dilation from 3 to 7 mm in post-refractive surgery patients
found to cause 28- to 46-fold increase in aberrations!
Just in case any of you large pupil patients were still wondering why
your vision is not so great....
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...st_uids=9932992
American Journal of Ophthalmology
Volume 127, Issue 1 , January 1999, Pages 1-7
Comparison of corneal wavefront aberrations after photorefractive
keratectomy and laser in situ keratomileusis.
Oshika T, Klyce SD, Applegate RA, Howland HC, El Danasoury MA.
Department of Ophthalmology, University of Tokyo School of Medicine,
Japan. oshik...@umin.ac.jp
Excerpt:
"Before surgery, simulated pupillary dilation from 3 to 7 mm caused a
five- to six-fold increase in the total aberrations. After surgery, the
same dilation resulted in a 25- to 32-fold increase in the
photorefractive keratectomy group and a 28- to 46-fold increase in the
laser in situ keratomileusis group."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marguerite McDonald and William Trattler no longer perform the LASIK
procedure. Are you familiar with these articles about LASIK
complications?
Recent publications make a clear case for withdrawal of FDA approval
for the LASIK procedure
Permanent Disease Changes Present in all Post-LASIK Corneas!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retri...=15604873&query_hl=1
Cornea. 2005 Jan;24(1):92-102.
Pathologic findings in postmortem corneas after successful laser in
situ keratomileusis.
Kramer TR, Chuckpaiwong V, Dawson DG, L'Hernault N, Grossniklaus HE,
Edelhauser HF.
Emory Eye Center, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA.
Theresa...@emoryhealthcare.org
Excerpt: Permanent pathologic changes were present in all post-LASIK
corneas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corneal Nerve Damage Continues to Increase years 2-3 after LASIK
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retri...=15505047&query_hl=2
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2004 Nov;45(11):3991-6.
Corneal reinnervation after LASIK: prospective 3-year longitudinal
study.
Calvillo MP, McLaren JW, Hodge DO, Bourne WM.
Department of Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine,
Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
Excerpts:
Between 2 and 3 years they [corneal nerves] decreased again, so that at
3 years the numbers remained <60% of the pre-LASIK numbers (P <0.001).
Both subbasal and stromal corneal nerves in LASIK flaps recover slowly
and do not return to preoperative densities by 3 years after LASIK. The
numbers of subbasal nerves appear to decrease between 2 and 3 years
after LASIK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LASIK Flap Only 2.4% as strong as Normal Cornea
http://www.journalofrefractivesurgery.com/showAbst.asp?thing=11320
Cohesive Tensile Strength of Human LASIK Wounds With Histologic,
Ultrastructural, and Clinical Correlations
Journal of Refractive Surgery Vol. 21 No. 5 September/October 2005
Ingo Schmack, MD; Daniel G. Dawson, MD; Bernard E. McCarey, PhD; George
O. Waring III, MD, FACS, FRCOphth; Hans E. Grossniklaus, MD; Henry F.
Edelhauser, PhD
Excerpt:
The human corneal stroma typically heals after LASIK in a limited and
incomplete fashion; this results in a weak, central and paracentral
hypocellular primitive stromal scar that averages 2.4% as strong as
normal corneal stroma.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13% of post-LASIK eyes have posterior vitreous detachment!
And 25% of high myopes have posterior vitreous detachment after LASIK!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15808256&query_hl=4
Ophthalmology. 2005 Apr;112(4):645-9.
Effect of microkeratome suction during LASIK on ocular structures.
Mirshahi A, Kohnen T.
Department of Ophthalmology, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University,
Frankfurt am
Main, Germany.
Excerpt:
Luna et al. reported the development of PVD after LASIK with an
incidence of 2% in a group of 50 patients with low myopia (1.25 to 3.5
D) and 24% in a group of 50 patients with high myopia (6 to 10 D).
Considering the data from the 100 eyes, this corresponds to 13%; thus,
there is not a great deal
of difference between our results and the data in the literature.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A surgeon who would perform corneal refractive surgery on a healthy
virgin cornea in light of current findings on the damage to visual
quality and comfort is no 'healer'. Why don't you find something else
to do with your life - something that doesn't hurt people.
Glenn - USAEyes.org
known and clarify his position on many important issues.
> I feel that the only reason Hagele decertified me was to
>pacify the people in this forum.
I believe it is fair to say that my desire to pacify people who
regularly participate in this forum is being greatly exaggerated.
Glenn - USAEyes.org
"poll". To learn more about CRSQA certification, visit
http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/subjects/certified.htm
Glenn - USAEyes.org
Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.com
Lasik eye surgeons Glenn A. Kawesch in San Diego and Gary W. Hall, Sr. in
Phoenix, who both advertised heavily and had performed tens of thousands of
surgeries, recently had their medical licenses suspended because of fraud
and poor Lasik patient outcomes.
Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.com
Glenn - USAEyes.org
The California Medical Board has never successfully shown Dr. Kawesch
has provided actionable poor Lasik patient outcomes. In another thread
in this forum Dr. Kawesch has provided details of the medical board's
findings (http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z2045266C).
The Medical Board of California revoked Dr. Glenn Kawesch's medical
license, citing tax fraud. It was Dr. Gary Hall, Sr. who had his
Arizona medical license revoked due to poor patient outcomes.
The revocation of Dr. Kawesch's medical license has subsequently been
reversed, however revocation reversal was not clearly indicated at the
California Medical Board's website at the time this press release was
distributed.
I have already personally apologized to Dr. Kawesch for any confusion
or inconvenience this release may have caused, and have offered to
provide a clarification distributed to the same audience.
RT
It's worth sticking around this group for a while.
Wonder who's coming up next.
I vote for Maloney.
--
~RT
Ragnar
now have 20/20 vision when they used to be virtually blind without
glasses or contacts. No good LASIK procedure indeed.
The articles referenced below are primarliy from a few inept surgeons
who lack the skill to perform LASIK so they wrote letters in to a
journal critical of LASIK and justifying PRK as an alternative. I
don't disagree with that. If you have an unskilled surgeon, or the
surgeon is using an old, typically second hand laser system, then you
would be better off having PRK done.
Trulyt...@yahoo.com
Looks like the vast majority of RK patients who had their corneas
weakened
by RK are now... YEARS LATER having visual problems due to peripheral
stretching
of their surgically altered corneas. The last thing that a middle aged
presbyope needs is a hyperopic
shift of more than a diopter.
Just talked yesterday to an early LASIK patient... he had LASIK in
1996, was undercorrected and had an
enhancement. Left eye still undercorrected, had 2nd enhancement. He now
has ectasia in both eyes.
It developed within the past year. It is worse in his left eye, which
had the extra enhancement. He's looking
at a double cornea transplant and is very frightened.
Expect more cases like this one as those millions of LASIK patients age
and their tissues weaken,
allowing the effects of the structural damage to the cornea caused by
LASIK to surface as ectasia. They
may have traded in good vision with glasses or contacts for blindness.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
serebel
Trulyt...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Gee,
>
> Looks like the vast majority of RK patients who had their corneas
> weakened
> by RK are now... YEARS LATER having visual problems due to peripheral
> stretching
> of their surgically altered corneas. The last thing that a middle aged
> presbyope needs is a hyperopic
> shift of more than a diopter.
Then why did a genious such as yourself have lasik?
> Just talked yesterday to an early LASIK patient... he had LASIK in
> 1996, was undercorrected and had an
> enhancement. Left eye still undercorrected, had 2nd enhancement. He now
> has ectasia in both eyes.
> It developed within the past year. It is worse in his left eye, which
> had the extra enhancement. He's looking
> at a double cornea transplant and is very frightened.
The very Kelleresque "I just talked to an early lasik patient."
It's just more bull to push an agenda..
Eye
informed decision about refractive surgery are withheld from the
public.
70% of the clinical outcomes from the VISX wavefront trials were
witheld. The 'good' outcomes retained make it look like you have
terrific odds of hitting 20/20 and keeping
it for a year, but that's not the case.
I applaud Sandy Keller's willingness to spend time talking with other
damaged patients. There are so many.
serebel
Eye wrote:
> Know what SErebel, most of the facts one would need to know to make an
> informed decision about refractive surgery are withheld from the
> public.
This is such a copout it's laughable. Read the damn forms you are
given.
> I applaud Sandy Keller's willingness to spend time talking with other
> damaged patients. There are so many.
Keller is just another "Monday morning expert". Most reasonable people
do their research BEFORE they have RS.
RT
"Eye" <eyetooa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 70% of the clinical outcomes from the VISX wavefront trials were
> witheld. The 'good' outcomes retained make it look like you have
> terrific odds of hitting 20/20 and keeping
> it for a year, but that's not the case.
I'm curious. What are your qualifications? How could you know this? How
are you privvy to all this information the rest of us don't have?
--
~RT
Glenn - USAEyes.org
>informed decision about refractive surgery are withheld from the
>public.
If you know of facts that are being "withheld from the public", then
state those facts here so the public would have the opportunity to
know them. This newsgroup is searchable.
If you know of facts one would need to know to make an informed
decision about refractive surgery that are being withheld from the
public and YOU are not making those facts public, then you are
withholding facts from the public.
Of course, back up what you consider to be facts with empirical
evidence that they are accurate.
Ragnar
realize that the minor problems with LASIK are trivial compared to the
benefits.
Your posts are so off the wall that they are not worth replying to.
Marshall Cosme
This is a must read on eye health and maintainance. You may or may not be
affected , but you might be shocked!
Please excuse the interruption , but I thought you may be interested to know
what may be causing all kinds of health problems for yourself or for your
loved ones. I can't seem to get it through to my wife's brain about this
vital health issue, Now she is always saying she is having trouble with her
vision. Gee, I wonder why? I am so pissed off right now, I really want to
slap some sense into her. She has been feeding this poison to my four
children for years after I asked her not too, so you can see why I said what
I said previously, but I would never hit my wife. Why are people ignore what
science brings to are attention about health issues. I am really upset, but
I hope this helps you....since I can't get through to my wife of 16
years.....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Glenn Kawesch, MD" <gkaw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136146214.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...