Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

See a picture of Christopher Roiland, aka "Ragnar"

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.com

unread,
Mar 9, 2006, 7:00:33 PM3/9/06
to

Ragnar

unread,
Mar 10, 2006, 4:57:24 AM3/10/06
to
Heh.. that fake picture looks better than your real one.

That picture is precious.


On 9 Mar 2006 16:00:33 -0800, "Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.com"
<admini...@lasikcourt.com> wrote:

>http://tinyurl.com/ofkd8

Ace

unread,
Mar 10, 2006, 6:00:53 AM3/10/06
to
wow scary picture, but hey theres no glasses on "it"

CatmanX

unread,
Mar 10, 2006, 6:26:32 AM3/10/06
to
Wow, you are one dumb fuck Nancy.Gollum is about as smart as you.

Now piss off and don't come back.

dr grant

CatmanX

unread,
Mar 10, 2006, 6:28:32 AM3/10/06
to

Wow Brent, this is so funny.

You still have a tiny penis and women run from you. Yes, you are that
repulsive.

dr grant

ycdbsoya

unread,
Mar 10, 2006, 11:58:35 AM3/10/06
to
Jeez, and I thought it was just bariatric surgery gone wrong. Silly me.

Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.com

unread,
Mar 10, 2006, 12:33:05 PM3/10/06
to
Dr. Glenn Kawesch responds to patient complaint

http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff55022.htm

I would like to take this opportunity to respond to the allegations of
"Fred" from Alpine, CA.

First of all, I would like to point out that I have never seen nor
operated on a person named Fred from Alpine. If he is truly a patient
of mine, he should be willing to come forward with his real name so
that I might be able to evaluate his situation and address his
concerns. If he is not really a patient of mine, but is a competitor
trying to harm me, than that is a disgusting use of what could be a
great forum.

I will go through his allegations paragraph by paragraph and address
them.

He calls me "ruthless, dishonest, and greedy" and claims that I
commited Medicare fraud. 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."

As to the claims 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."

Fred talks about malpractice cases, but 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)."

Fred insults Judge Hewitt by saying he didn't know how many lives that
I had ruined. 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."

Fred claims that I told him that he was a "perfect candidate". I would
never use the word perfect because there is no perfection in medicine
and there is no such thing as a perfect candidate.

I cannot respond to Fred's allegations about his post-op care, because
I do not know his real name or even if he really is a patient. Given
his real name, I would go through his chart and respond to allegations
about his post op care. What I tell patients about flap healing is that
the surface layer of epithelial cells cover the flap in 24 hours, but
the patient needs to be careful not to rub the eye for 1-2 weeks. The
healing of the prescription usually takes about 3 months and that is
the time when enhancements are performed. Flaps, while healed, can be
lifed for years after LASIK.

Fred's IRS claims are true. I have admitted wrongdoing regarding my
taxes and paid the penalty for those actions. 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."

Mayor Golding was thrilled with the results of her procedure and was
unaware that she was not allowed to be used in testimonial advertising.
She provided her testimonial and photos to us for use.

Hopefully, I have made clear the inaccuracies stated by "Fred". I would
love to help Fred, if he would come forward and allow me to do so.

Sincerely,

Glenn - San Diego, California
U.S.A.

Ragnar

unread,
Mar 10, 2006, 3:54:59 PM3/10/06
to
You know.. I saw a show on some cable channel where they are growing
human body parts on mice. The most startling was one in which they
had a human ear growing out of the back of a mouse. Certain stem
cells were activated on some human tissue and implanted into the
mouse's back. This is intended for use with burn victims or other
injuries.
It is conceivable that Eye/Scientist/Burch could grow a new larger
penis for Brent on a rat in her laboratory at Duke Univiersity - if
she had not lost that job. Maybe she can sell clear plastic flip
flops for Keller's budget nudist colony weddings.

On 10 Mar 2006 03:28:32 -0800, "CatmanX" <drg...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:

CatmanX

unread,
Mar 10, 2006, 11:45:45 PM3/10/06
to
Seriously? Wow cool, so there is some hope for Brent. Maybe they can
grow a brain too.

dr grant

Ace

unread,
Mar 11, 2006, 8:19:44 AM3/11/06
to
we shold grow some manners for Grant

CatmanX

unread,
Mar 11, 2006, 11:31:30 PM3/11/06
to
Grant has manners, he just doesn't extend them to morons like you
Nancy.

You are a waste of time, space and air.

p.s. when your OK doesn't work, email me and I'll tell you why.

dr grant

Ragnar

unread,
Mar 14, 2006, 3:13:28 AM3/14/06
to
I don't want to start an OK battle... but there is thing I would like
your feedback on...

1. A custom RGP lens such as a Zwave has an inner surface that is
ablated to match the surface of the patient's cornea - to provide a
"better" fit. The outer surface is a uniform curve.

2. A standard RGP lens has a uniform curve which molds the surface of
the patient's cornea a bit to eliminate astigmatism. Unlike the zwave
lens, the cornea is forced to fit the inner curve of the lens instead
of the zwave lens which is modified to fit the cornea. And again, the
outer surface of the lens is a uniform curve.

3. An OK lens is an RGP whose inner surface is flat to actually mold
the cornea into a flatter shape - which LASIK does permanently by
means of ablation. And once again, the outer surface of the lens is a
uniform curve.

In all 3 types of rigid lenses above, the outer surface of the RGP is
smooth, so when the lens is in, the wearer gets normal vision.

4. In standard soft lenses, the lens is a uniform curve which doesn't
correct astigmatism since it is changing the refraction of the light
uniformly over the entire cornea instead of correcting it more in one
region of the cornea than others.

5. Toric soft lenses are designed to correct astigmatism by having the
lens thicker where needed to compensate, and the orientation of the
lens is maintained by means of "weighting" the lens.

Again.. I don't want an argument here of what works and what doesn't.
I just want to know if those are the fundamental differences in how
those 5 types of contact lenses work.

On 11 Mar 2006 20:31:30 -0800, "CatmanX" <drg...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:

CatmanX

unread,
Mar 14, 2006, 3:54:35 PM3/14/06
to
Holy Cow Batman, you asked a normal question for once.

The RGP lenses work in different ways to achieve different things. The
first thing to remember here is that the aim of any (with the exception
of OK) contact lens is to create a changed anterior surface of the eye
(as an optical system). The front curve does 2/3 of all light bending.
1) Standard RGP lens - this creates a new front curve. If the wearer
has no optical imperfection, then it simply refocusses the light to
correct the refractive error. Spherical RGP lenses will correct up to
around 2D of corneal astigmatism simply by overriding the curve (the
tears have much the same RI as the cornea, so the astigmatic component
is neutralised) and if there is enough cyl or the lens rocks or moves
away from centre, the back surface can be made toric (astigmatic
correction) to locate the lens. The cyl on the back surface has no
optical effect, only the front surface.

2)Reverse geometry (wave style) lenses are designed to counter the
effects of post RS corneas. There is a limit to how much gap between
the back of the lens and front of the eye before you get air bubbles
under the lens. To counter this, we use reverse geometry lenses to
align the back of the lens closer to the eye. This is the only reason
we use this type of lens here. If there is an optical problem, then the
tears neutralise the optical issue, distortion, SA etc. and the front
curve creates a smooth front surface to give improved vision.

3) OK lenses are different as we use the lens as a mould, not to
correct optics while worn. The aim of OK is to place a flat curve close
(like 4-20 microns) from the front of the cornea and to have a raised
area 3mm from the centre of the cornea. The centre pushes the centre
cornea flatter, whike the mid-peripheral lift "sucks" the cornea out.
It is the combination of the two regions that makes these lenses work.
The aim is to get the correct curve to make appropriate allowance for
the script.

4) A soft lens is like cling film. It wraps to cover the underlying
cornea. It will therefore transfer any aberrations through to the front
surface, where hard/RGP lens do not change shape. In the old days, we
could modify the thickness of the lens so the wrap was less and some
degree of cyl could be compensated. I have used this for some
keratoconics that could not adapt to RGP lenses and get improvement
over regular SCL's or specs.

5) Astigmatic SCL. This is just putting the correction for astigmatism
on a soft lens. These lenses are weighted (ballasted) to hold the
astigmatic correction at the right angle. What this lens does is use
the cornea, whether toric or spherical, to hold the lens in place.
These are the best lenses to correct astigmatism where there is a
spherical corneal shape. You can do it with RGP but there is a lot of
problems associated with that, such as thickness, lid pressure,
rotation etc.

Hope this helped.

dr grant (see I can be nice - sometimes)

Ragnar

unread,
Mar 15, 2006, 5:20:47 AM3/15/06
to
I think you will find that all my QUESTIONS are quite relevant. It is
not easy to respond to a monster such as Keller without being mean.
You certainly are a bit colorful in your responses to idiots.

I wish you had simplified the reply below more.. but it's not a simple
distinciton to make. I guarantee you that most optometrists don't
even think about the things below - which is quite scary. They are
probably aware of them, but don't really understand them, think about
them, or use that thinking in their decision making.

On 14 Mar 2006 12:54:35 -0800, "CatmanX" <drg...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:

CatmanX

unread,
Mar 16, 2006, 5:56:31 AM3/16/06
to
Colourful, Moi???

Never. I just hate idiots.

What would you like simplified? Ask and it is yours.

dr grant

Ragnar

unread,
Mar 16, 2006, 9:05:26 AM3/16/06
to
I haven't had a chance to analyze your response. I still have a
pollen induced headache. Hopefully my original post was not wrong
although it lacked detail.

I'm too lazy to look this up... this is a guess. In the eye itself,
the natural lens accounts for 1/3rd the focusing power of the eye and
the cornea 2/3rds.
In a contact lens, the outer curve is 2/3rd of it's power, and the
inner curve is 1/3rd. Actually I thought the inner curve was
irrelevant. It seems to me that on an OK/reverse geometry lens there
is a "box" shape instead of a curve to the inner surface.


Calling Keller an idiot would actually be a compliment. She is much
worst than an idiot. She knowing and maliciously trys to mislead
people. Delusional might be more appropriate.

On 16 Mar 2006 02:56:31 -0800, "CatmanX" <drg...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:

CatmanX

unread,
Mar 17, 2006, 2:26:31 PM3/17/06
to
The rear surface essentially neutralises the corneal power. This is why
we use RGP for post RS fits where the cornea is mucked up.

OK still uses a curve, it is generally 2-6D flatter than the cornea,
not quite flat as one may think.\\dr grant

Ragnar

unread,
Mar 18, 2006, 12:46:10 AM3/18/06
to
Nice clear and concise reply...

I have another question for you... relative to myopic lasik (which
flattens the cornea by ablating the central optical zone) how much
more of a problem are corneas treated whith hyperopic lasik (which
steepens the cornea by creating a ring shaped "trough" around the
periphery of the cornea while leaving the central zone untouched)

On 17 Mar 2006 11:26:31 -0800, "CatmanX" <drg...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:

>The rear surface essentially neutralises the corneal power. This is why

0 new messages