To Glenn: You are pathetic
Sandy
shattered, was partially shattered. Find a post where I am
complaining about my vision. Please, Glenn, find one. When asked, I
have presented facts about how I see, but I have never complained.
I have said over and over and over again on this newsgroup that I feel
lucky, blessed, happy that I ended up here, where I am, with my
vision. I never thought I'd be able to see 20/15 through a melted,
thinned, scarred, hazed up and wrinkled cornea with a stop-start ridge
in it. Well, I can. I thank God constantly for the vision I now
have, because I can hardly believe that I escaped without a
transplant, at least so far.
I am not a whiner. Find a post where I have whined about my vision.
Why would I risk a transplant when I can see? Dr. Rabinowitz told me
that when I am ready to risk the immediate need for a transplant, it
would be worth trying custom ablation. Fat chance, as long as a
contact lens will correct my vision.
My sympathies are not for myself--they are with my friends who are not
having any success regaining their vision after botched LASIK with
top, and yes, even CRSQA-certified surgeons. Multiple transplants.
Months of waiting. Still no correctable vision, even with hard
contacts. What is going to happen to these people? Two doctors, out
of work, practices gone. A mom who will likely lose her driver's
license soon when she has to try to read the chart at the DMV. People
who can no longer work. People who cannot talk about what lasik did
to them without breaking down and crying--even men.
Did you know that I had to intervene on the part of a LASIK patient
who was going to commit suicide the next day and arrange to get her on
a plane to California within 12 hours in order to save her life? I
paid for her airfare, a cornea transplant, strabismus surgery and
doctor visits, glasses, etc. because her LASIK "doctor" would not take
responsibility for how he had butchered her vision and she had no
medical insurance.
In the end, SE members reimbursed a big chunk of what I paid out,
because we are a family, more than you could ever understand. We are
left to pick up the pieces of each other's lives because the doctors
are too busy lasering more eyes and attending seminars on how to avoid
malpractice lawsuits.
YOU HAVE NO CLUE, GLENN, how LASIK has shattered lives.
The biggest hell I went through was not with my vision. It was
discovering the betrayal by a trusted doctor. A doctor who sold me to
the highest bidder. A doctor who had a financial interest in
determining where to refer me, and in telling me what a great
candidate I was. Women who've been raped said they understand how I
must feel---women who've contacted me via this newsgroup. I'm not
sure about that, but whatever I went through, I've emerged on the
other side and I want the world to know what I have learned. The
information is out there, but I didn't know to look for it. I will
continue to post articles, studies, case reports, etc. to my heart's
content and I don't care what you say about me, because I do not like
you. Your opinion of me means nothing to me.
Life is too short to waste talking any further to the likes of you.
Talk about me all you want. It actually serves no purpose other than
to make you look ugly. You are lower than low. I have nothing else
to say to you. Ever.
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
>Find one post. ONE. One post where I say my life is shattered, was
>shattered, was partially shattered.
So Sandy, are you saying that your complications from refractive
surgery were not "catastrophic"?
After you answer this question, I'll respond to the rest of your
clueless, arrogant, insulting, self pitying, and abusive BS.
serebel
Oh please, I've been to these SE meetings. Most of these people can
see just fine. The biggest reason they whine is that they are less
dependent on correction as opposed to none at all. You have been one
of the biggest whiners I've ever seen. You and a lot of the fruitcases
on SE are probably the biggest hypocondriacs ever gathered together. A
lot of people who were looking on the SE BB are now laughing at you
people. Very little traffic there now, mostly because it's just the
same old bullshit, over and over again. Credibility? You've got to be
kidding!!
IHATESPAM
feels about things, or what she has gone through with her vision.
I would not myself be at all pleased with double vision, or with
iatrogenic problems that would cause me to have 8 eye surgeries. In
my opinion, a person who has gone through that much deserves to be
able to whine. (I have never seen Sandy whine, but I am just saying
that in her place, I would be whining up a storm.)
Is there any hope that everyone could someday just discuss things and
not have such anger?
Love, Leora
serebel
In fairness, if I were in Sandy's shoes I would be pissed.
Yes, her surgeon screwed up big time, but now because of what happened
to her, noone should have refractive surgery. Mistakes in all types of
surgeries will happen, should we declare a moratorium on all
surgeries?
What happened to Sandy does not excuse her from the hysterical lies,
half truths, and omissions when she posts parts of scientific
articles.
SErebel
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Waiting for an answer, Sandy. Are you saying your complications from
refractive surgery were not catastrophic? Were they or were they not?
IHATESPAM
> In fairness, if I were in Sandy's shoes I would be pissed.
> Yes, her surgeon screwed up big time, but now because of what happened
> to her, noone should have refractive surgery. Mistakes in all types of
> surgeries will happen, should we declare a moratorium on all
> surgeries?
> What happened to Sandy does not excuse her from the hysterical lies,
> half truths, and omissions when she posts parts of scientific
> articles.
>
> SErebel
I disagree also with the idea of a moratorium on all refractive
surgery. I think that the vast majority are helped and not harmed
with this surgery, and I believe that as we learn more, and refine the
patient education process as well, the success rates will get even
higher and higher.
Love, Leora
Scooby
news:110e7146.03051...@posting.google.com...
Leora,
Don't forget, you sided with the people that want the moratorium. I agree
entirely with what you said in your paragraph above. But, keep in mind what
all these anti-lasik people are here about - taking away your right to
choose or not choose refractive surgery.
Jim
Alex
yourself with Sandy Keller and Ron Link just because you felt you were
being picked on.
Even Sandy Keller and Ron Link won't acknowlege the most outrageous
things they say after they say them.
Ragnar Suomi
history to cover themselves. Ron is infamous for removing any
messages that contradict with his manifesto. He does that daily.
Sandy made me laugh by saying in the same message "I did not change my
website" and "I archived my website before I removed the pictures and
the story about the eye removals". It's a good thing she archived
those changes that she didn't make.
On Sat, 10 May 2003 15:54:34 GMT, Alex <alex_l...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
>Yes, and you forgot to mention that they even go as far as to revise
>history to cover themselves. Ron is infamous for removing any
>messages that contradict with his manifesto. He does that daily.
Yes, he is known for making such changes on his own website and
attempting to make such changes here. Fortunately, if you do not use
Google, all Link's previous messages are available on the tens of
thousands of other newsgroup servers throughout the world.
Another trick Link uses is to change the subject lines. On Google,
that will make a new thread and loose the link to the previous thread.
It is also fortunate that most newsgroup readers do not recognize this
as a change in thread like Google does.
Of course, when Link wants to make a (edited) point, he sends people
to Google. I have already caught him in this act of deception. My
how the individuals involved were surprised when the full thread was
disclosed with all of Link's ravings and lies.
>Sandy made me laugh by saying in the same message "I did not change my
>website" and "I archived my website before I removed the pictures and
>the story about the eye removals". It's a good thing she archived
>those changes that she didn't make.
Let us not forget how Link told Brent Hanson that he supported a
moratorium on refractive surgery and had argued for it in a public
forum, then when I quoted him he said he had never said anything like
that and I had defamed him.
Oh what a tangled web we weave...
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
http://www.usaeyes.org
glenn....@usaeyes.org
I am not a doctor.
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
>> I disagree also with the idea of a moratorium on all refractive
>> surgery. I think that the vast majority are helped and not harmed
>> with this surgery, and I believe that as we learn more, and refine the
>> patient education process as well, the success rates will get even
>> higher and higher.
>>
>> Love, Leora
>>
>
>Leora,
>
>Don't forget, you sided with the people that want the moratorium. I agree
>entirely with what you said in your paragraph above. But, keep in mind what
>all these anti-lasik people are here about - taking away your right to
>choose or not choose refractive surgery.
>
>Jim
I must disagree, Jim. The only right the anti-refractive
surgery/surgeon/industry zealots will allow the public is the right to
NOT choose refractive surgery.
lifesabirch
> see just fine. The biggest reason they whine is that they are less
> dependent on correction as opposed to none at all. You have been one
> of the biggest whiners I've ever seen. You and a lot of the fruitcases
> on SE are probably the biggest hypocondriacs ever gathered together.
I was never a hypocondriac. I was an easy going guy who put up with
alot of crap and back pain and didn't complain too much before my eye
surgery. Having bad vision from LASIK changed that.
I now cannot read books, have to lie down at work because I can't
focus on anything, am afraid if I lost my job, I can't fully learn
another because of corrected blurred vision. I don't want to get up in
the morning because I don't want to look out of my eyes. I've spent
hours at appointments and thousands going across the country and with
expensive rgp's trying to find a solution. My social life has gone
down the toilet, can't take a liesurely drive, can't look someone in
the eye for too long because they are blurred.
Is this all in my head? Am I dreaming this? Am I making this up so I
purposely want to complain and want attention? Hardly.
Am I complaining? Yep. This is all due to this safe, easy procedure.
A
> lot of people who were looking on the SE BB are now laughing at you
> people. Very little traffic there now, mostly because it's just the
> same old bullshit, over and over again. Credibility? You've got to be
> kidding!!
SE saved me emotionally when I thought I was the only one going
through this.
I've personally stopped posting on SE. Why? Because I've learned to
cope a bit better with a disability. Plus, I didn't find a solution
for my problem after 2 years. I know alot of people who've stopped
because of this reason.
Doctors are now finally waking up to the problems Lasik has caused so
there are ALOT more on there now. But, bottom line. The money is in
the surgeries. Not in fixing the minority who are devestated.
lifesabirch
Who's calling for a moratorium on all surgeries? It's impossible
anyway so why even discuss.
I personally wish Lasik wan't even invented. I'd be living a full life
now. But I don't find a whole lot of people trying to take away your
rights.
Although there is a kernal of truth to people being anti-lasik, there
are different types of people as well. Don't bunch everyone in one
catagory.
I think most people with a bad outcome are just pro-informing than
anti-anything. And most bad outcome people could care less if the
lasik industry continued if there were more solutions to our problems.
At this point, I just want to see clearly and have my life back. I
don't care if people choose to have refractive surgery - I try to help
inform as to what can happen, but really I'm sick of being partially
blinded.
IHATESPAM
Hi, Jim, I didn't know that. I thought they were just in favor of
better patient education regarding risks, and improvements to
technology.
Well, I'm for those things, but not for a moratorium at all!
Love, Leora
leukoma
Well, slap, slap, slap, slap, slap is all I have ever gotten from
Surgical Eyes for caring. THAT has been taken care of.
In the meantime, lifesabirch, why not give Glenn Hagele a call. He
has some grant money, as well as some surgeons with wavefront
technology, who will gladly try to restore your life as you once knew
it. Why not get a second opinion. If my life were as distressed as
yours, I would roll the dice.
DrG
Scooby
news:103a5b9.03051...@posting.google.com...
It is no secret around here that Ron Link publicly called for a moratorium.
He's the ring leader of SE and he and his followers seem to do everything
they can to prevent Lasik from happening. Okay, maybe not everything, but
they seem to go to extremes. Sandy constantly publishes articles trying to
mislead the people of this group to think that Lasik is a very high risk
procedure. Honestly, I don't think Sandy understands half of what she
posts, or at least even takes the time to really read it. Much of what she
posts contradicts what she'll state in another post. When questioned about
it, she'll get defensive or just not answer.
Sandy has stated in this group that Lasik is just too risky for people to
have it. I've asked many times for her to post what she thinks is an
acceptable percentage of risk. She is yet to answer. Her solution is just
that people shouldn't have it, not that people should make an educated
decision. She actually posted an article that "appeared" to be anti-lasik,
but it stated in there that malpractice rates for lasik are low because of
the really low risk factor. She did not respond when I pointed that out.
Actually, she posts a lot of things that "appear" to be anti-lasik until you
really take the time to read them.
Unfortunately, because of them, when someone like you comes in here posting
that you have had problems with Lasik, it is looked at with a great deal of
skepticism. Not because the people of the group don't think it could
happen - they are realistic and know that there are people who have
catastrophic results. But, simply because there is so much deception going
on from these anti-lasik people that it is hard to tell who is for real.
If you did have the results that you say, I think you'd have the sympathy of
everyone in this group. I personally hate that anyone would ever be
handicapped by it. But, I am realistic to know that is how science works.
Most benefit, some are negatively affected. But, honestly, from your post,
you don't seem anti-lasik, so you wouldn't fit into the classification. You
seem more like someone who is frustrated with bad results and only wishes
for a solution. I hope you find one soon.
Really, you could substitute anti-Lasik with just about anti-anything.
People that develop a strong cause often will do most anything to get their
point across. Sure, not everyone goes to extremes, but many do. Here you
find those. Make no mistake, there are people here that would love for
Lasik to be banned.
Jim
Ragnar Suomi
such as STDs, abortions, miscarriages, and AIDS. There should be an
immediate moratorium on sexual relations!
In order to procreate, the government should set up test tube baby
centers.
I've heard horror stories which suggest that some foolhardy people
have no intention of procreating when having sexual relations. Why
would anyone take such risks just for the sake of sexual relations?
(sarcasm)
On Sun, 11 May 2003 01:43:46 GMT, "Scooby" <mmsc...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
Scooby
and then the relationship does not work out. People have even commited
suicide over this. I agree - it should be banned. Okay, maybe not - but
the point is well taken.
"Ragnar Suomi" <ragna...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:59crbvkhrrb0ocfq4...@4ax.com...
Billy
> Let's not forget the mental anguish that people go through from having sex
> and then the relationship does not work out. People have even commited
> suicide over this. I agree - it should be banned. Okay, maybe not - but
> the point is well taken.
Let's not forget the mental anguish people go through when the US
president's sexual relations are the main story every night on the news at
11:00.
Oh yea, I forgot, he did not have "sexual relations" with that woman.......
--
Billy
www.alt-lasik-eyes.com
(Home of the unofficial Alt.Lasik-Eyes FAQ)
Sandy
I've never stated that I am for a moratorium either. I am in favor of
people having as much information about lasik and what it does to
vision and the cornea as possible, so that a TRULY informed consent
takes place. I am in favor of MAJOR changes in advertising and an end
to the constant barrage of hype and people being told that the new
lasik is safe. I don't believe that the word "safe" is appropriate
for refractive surgery. I am in favor of necessary scientific
studies and longterm followups which have not been done yet.
serebel
Lifesabirch,
I'm not trying to minimize your and other peoples post RS ruined vision.
I sincerely hope you will find a permanent solution to your vision loss.
I rail about a select few SE people for their dishonest and manipulative antics.
By some of their actions,they have lost most of their credibility.
SErebel
lifesabirch
>
> I'm not trying to minimize your and other peoples post RS ruined vision.
> I sincerely hope you will find a permanent solution to your vision loss.
>
> I rail about a select few SE people for their dishonest and manipulative antics.
> By some of their actions,they have lost most of their credibility.
>
> SErebel
Thanks, serebel for the encouraging words. But don't you lose a bit of
credibility by assuming Sandy wants a moratorium when she's never said
anything like that? Just wondering. Or is that not what you implied.
Someone else said that Ron wants that? I've never heard that from
him, but I could be mistaken. All I see are people trying to give
information as to what can go wrong and what actually happens to the
eye with refractive surgery. Give a voice to the casualties. I really
don't see the problem with that. Isn't that helping being honest about
a serious surgery?
It's mostly positive things about this surgery that the public knows.
Having a few people tell another side isn't about whining. It's
presenting a realistic viewpoint and experience.
That being said, I'm sure there is some kind of deception or
manipulation on both sides sometimes. It's human nature. Especially
when someone has been harmed by something that was supposed to help.
Or there is money to be made. Or you think it's the greatest thing
since sliced bread and think everyone's experience is the same and
people just want to whine.
It's tough being on the negative side of something. But that's my
experience. I can't lie. If someone has a great outcome, I'm happy for
them. If it's a good outcome, it's great. If not, it's devestating and
a daily struggle filled with multiple problems for years and years.
Ragnar Suomi
done?
Why haven't you even once made a comment about LVI advertising $299
LASIK? Instead of criticizing LVI for that, you praised Dr. Rothman
who bounces around 10 different LVI centers in Florida performing
refractive surgery on patients he's never met previously, patients
that he doesn't do the followups on, and routinely does PRK instead of
LASIK if he's running out of time to catch his flight home to Ft.
Lauderdale. Florida is a huge place and he is a frequent flier. Of
course to accomodate him being able to service 10 different LVI
centers, they must push patients into all showing up on a specific day
and be "corralled" into the place while they all wait on him in a
queue.
Why you think Dr. Rothman is so wonderful is beyond my comprehension.
Ironically, a person at LVI who told me that Dr. Rothman is fantastic
has since been fired due to complaints of patients regarding
misinformation. Ron should apply for that job. He is MOM - the
Mother Of Misinformation.
On 10 May 2003 20:56:00 -0700, sandyk...@netscape.net (Sandy)
wrote:
Ragnar Suomi
wrote:
>> Lifesabirch,
>>
>
>Thanks, serebel for the encouraging words. But don't you lose a bit of
>credibility by assuming Sandy wants a moratorium when she's never said
>anything like that?
In Sandy's case, her own website has a picture of a nuclear blast
mushroom cloud and implies that it is the same as laser ablation.
Then she suggests that LASIK causes cancer, then she suggests that
LASIK results in suicide.
Somehow, I think Sandy might just support Ron's call for a moratorium
on refractive surgery.
IHATESPAM
Especially those calls that are prerecorded messages and you can't
even talk to a person to tell them not to call again.
Love, Leora
Scooby
> people having as much information about lasik and what it does to
> vision and the cornea as possible, so that a TRULY informed consent
> takes place. I am in favor of MAJOR changes in advertising and an end
> to the constant barrage of hype and people being told that the new
> lasik is safe. I don't believe that the word "safe" is appropriate
> for refractive surgery. I am in favor of necessary scientific
> studies and longterm followups which have not been done yet.
>
Sandy,
I fully expect you to ignore this post and the questions in it, just like
you always do. So, prove me wrong - let people know exactly where you
stand.
When you post the way you do and then refuse to answer questions, it only
leaves the group to conclude exactly what you stand for. It seems like you
absolutely refuse to formulate an opinion until someone makes one for you
and then you argue that point. There is no secret that you are very strongly
anti-lasik, your website makes this quite clear. Also, your relationship
with SE further states your position. There is dispute exactly what that
relationship is, but the fact is that you are close with them.
Anyway, please answer what I have been trying to get you to. I don't really
know how to phrase the question exactly to get complete results, but feel
free to elaborate in your own way. What percentage risk do you think is
acceptable for Lasik? Both minor and major complications.
Also, please answer Glenn's question.... Do you feel that your Lasik
results were catastrophic?
And here is a very important question: I agree with you that we could use
some high volume, unbiased official studies and more available information
for patients. Until then, what do you propose? An immediate moratorium
until these can get done, or Lasik as usual? Something in between? What do
you think should be done?
The people here don't say Lasik is "safe" as simply put by you. But, it is
reasonably safe and low risk. Note your recent post that says malpractice
rates are low because of that. It is not high risk, like you want people to
think. What is your definition of safe? Do you only do things in your life
that are safe? How about your kids (assuming you have some), do you let
them do things that are unsafe?
My child got kicked in the teeth and it broke one of his permanent ones
during a soccer game. Should I be standing on the side lines warning all
the parents?
Please, please, please answer the questions above. I think I speak for a
majority of this group when I say that we would all love to know exactly
what you stand for. I'd certainly like to stop inferring from the stuff
that you post and know for sure.
Jim
Sandy
> > I've never stated that I am for a moratorium either. I am in favor of
> > people having as much information about lasik and what it does to
> > vision and the cornea as possible, so that a TRULY informed consent
> > takes place. I am in favor of MAJOR changes in advertising and an end
> > to the constant barrage of hype and people being told that the new
> > lasik is safe. I don't believe that the word "safe" is appropriate
> > for refractive surgery. I am in favor of necessary scientific
> > studies and longterm followups which have not been done yet.
> >
>
> Sandy,
>
> I fully expect you to ignore this post and the questions in it, just like
> you always do. So, prove me wrong - let people know exactly where you
> stand.
Jim, I have assumed a policy of ignoring posts addressed to me by Ryan
Jensen/Ragnar/Ryan Roberts; Billy; and now Glenn because they have
quoted me as saying things I have not said. The latest now is that I
want a moratorium, which I have never said. The front page on my site
basically states that I want people who are considering lasik to know
all of the negatives that go along with it. They get all of the
positives from the hype, the docs, the ads. It won't hurt them to NOT
have lasik. It can hurt them to have it. I believe that everyone
going into that surgery has a right to know EVERY bad thing that can
happen and more importantly, to understand how a bad outcome will
affect their life, their job and their relationships.
There will be a very important presentation on the psychological
ramifications of a bad outcome on my site soon.
A bad outcome isn't just a little glare, a few halos, an annoyance or
two. It can be devastating in ways that people with good vision
cannot understand. And when you add betrayal and dishonesty, you end
up with a bad outcome emotionally as well. Combined, the poor vision
and the psychological struggle make it very difficult to perform like
you used to at work, and in your marriage and relationships with
children and friends.
>
> When you post the way you do and then refuse to answer questions, it only
> leaves the group to conclude exactly what you stand for.
I'm not going to answer to people I have no respect for. People who
call me a liar when I have not lied. They will not own any of my
time.
It seems like you
> absolutely refuse to formulate an opinion until someone makes one for you
> and then you argue that point.
There is no secret that you are very strongly
> anti-lasik, your website makes this quite clear.
Anti-not knowing how bad a bad lasik outcome can be.
Also, your relationship
> with SE further states your position.
What is my relationship with SE? Why do all of you presume to know
exactly what that is?
There is dispute exactly what that
> relationship is, but the fact is that you are close with them.
"Close" with whom?
>
> Anyway, please answer what I have been trying to get you to. I don't really
> know how to phrase the question exactly to get complete results, but feel
> free to elaborate in your own way. What percentage risk do you think is
> acceptable for Lasik?
I cannot ever answer that, because a percentage means a certain number
of people, and one person with a devastating outcome is too many for
an elective and unnecessary but oversold procedure.
Both minor and major complications.
>
> Also, please answer Glenn's question.... Do you feel that your Lasik
> results were catastrophic?
Depends on what is meant by catastrophic. Why would he ask this? He
knows just as much as the next person what I went through. I had just
finished telling him that I wasn't going to communicate with him
further, and then he asks me a question.
He lies and calls me a whiner, but I rarely talk about my problems.
Let me put all of you to a challenge. What problems am I having now,
today? I doubt you can answer, because I do not whine about them.
This is why I have no respect for Mr. Hagele and will not address him
again. He has lied about me repeatedly, and then he calls me a liar.
I haven't lied. I don't need to. He doesn't seem to understand that
there are huge networks of people with lasik complications who are not
visible on bulletin boards and newsgroups.
>
> And here is a very important question: I agree with you that we could use
> some high volume, unbiased official studies and more available information
> for patients.
I don't think that's totally necessary. I think we know what bad
lasik can do to a person.
Until then, what do you propose?
Immediate changes in informed consent. Pictures of aberrations caused
by bad outcomes. Show the videos that have been created for
television reports on bad outcomes. Information about the
psychological problems that will likely occur with a bad outcome,
including feelings of hopelessness, guilt, betrayal, and even wanting
to die to escape it all--the bad vision, eye pain, headaches, general
feelings of malaise from imbalance, relationship strain, fights,
blame, being strung along with promises of custom ablation, doctors
telling you your corneas look great, you're crazy...the list goes on
and on.
An immediate moratorium
> until these can get done, or Lasik as usual?
They could be done next week. They could have been done four years
ago.
Something in between? What do
> you think should be done?
>
> The people here don't say Lasik is "safe" as simply put by you. But, it is
> reasonably safe and low risk. Note your recent post that says malpractice
> rates are low because of that. It is not high risk, like you want people to
> think. What is your definition of safe?
Safe means no risk of harm. It's either safe, or it's not. LASIK
cannot be called safe.
Do you only do things in your life
> that are safe?
Nope. If I wasn't somewhat of a risk taker, I wouldn't have had
lasik. That doesn't mean that I was informed of what could happen to
me. I wasn't.
Look at Leora. She was a poor candidate, yet she is finding out after
surgery, not before when she could have made an informed choice. She
was not an informed patient. Why is this still happening? That is
what I have a problem with.
How about your kids (assuming you have some), do you let
> them do things that are unsafe?
Well, gee, they have skateboards. They go up to the wilderness park
behind our house alone. They walk to and from school some days. They
ride around in the car at night with me and my impaired vision. We
eat at restaurants. None of these things are "safe".
They will never have elective surgery on their eyes, though--they have
vowed that. They are first-hand witnesses and victims of the fallout.
> My child got kicked in the teeth and it broke one of his permanent ones
> during a soccer game. Should I be standing on the side lines warning all
> the parents?
Yep, that they might want to consider mouthguards.
> Please, please, please answer the questions above. I think I speak for a
> majority of this group when I say that we would all love to know exactly
> what you stand for. I'd certainly like to stop inferring from the stuff
> that you post and know for sure.
>
I'm not sure why you and whomever else really needs to get inside my
head. I'm not asking for financial contributions here. I just want
the truth to be known. I lived it. I don't want anyone else to have
to live it, at least without knowing about it before they have their
corneas sliced and lasered.
I feel a great responsibility to warn the unsuspecting. I talk to
doctors who are willing to be honest, and what they tell me makes me
sick to my stomach. For instance, ophthalmologists who have decided
not to do refractive surgery because it greatly disturbs them to have
so many patients coming to them, begging them to restore their damaged
vision. Cornea transplants are up, thanks to lasik. Optometrists who
no longer recommend it, because their patients are coming back 3-4
years later needing correction again, and contact lenses are no longer
easy to fit on these people with flattened corneas. I didn't know
that doctors on FDA panels could have financial interests in approving
devices, and that the laser manufacturers had given millions of
dollars in stocks to them. I didn't know that people were suicidal
due to bad lasik results, or out of work or divorced due to the strain
their complications added to the normal challenges of being married.
I didn't know that I might never be correctable with glasses or soft
contact lenses again, because all my informed consent form told me was
that I might still have to wear them. I could list a zillion things,
but I think you get the drift.
I know too much now to turn my back on all of this and forget about
it.
Mr. Hagele calls me selfish. It doesn't help me to stay involved. It
strains my marriage, it makes my kids resentful, it takes up my time,
and it keeps me in a depressed state. But I won't stop fighting the
deception and lack of true informed consent.
For instance, on "Extreme Makeovers" two weeks ago. The female
patient was going to have lasik, and just before breaking for a
commercial, the host states, "Next, ____ is going to have lasik and
will never need to wear glasses again!"
I wonder if she was told that she might never be ABLE to wear glasses
again. Of course, the audience wasn't privy to whatever warnings she
might have received, and most probably didn't know that the "throw
away your glasses" claims were supposed to end years ago. The lies
continue.
Sandy
> On 11 May 2003 03:33:21 -0700, lifes...@yahoo.com (lifesabirch)
> wrote:
>
> >> Lifesabirch,
> >>
> >
> >Thanks, serebel for the encouraging words. But don't you lose a bit of
> >credibility by assuming Sandy wants a moratorium when she's never said
> >anything like that?
>
> In Sandy's case, her own website has a picture of a nuclear blast
> mushroom cloud and implies that it is the same as laser ablation.
It is an actual photo of a laser ablating corneal tissue.
> Then she suggests that LASIK causes cancer,
It could. We don't know yet.
then she suggests that
> LASIK results in suicide.
It can. It has led to documented suicide attempts.
> Somehow, I think Sandy might just support Ron's call for a moratorium
> on refractive surgery.
Ron didn't call for a moratorium on refractive surgery.
Sandy
> >Sandy made me laugh by saying in the same message "I did not change my
> >website" and "I archived my website before I removed the pictures and
> >the story about the eye removals". It's a good thing she archived
> >those changes that she didn't make.
Another lie, Ryan. I said that I had not made "major overhaul" to my
site, which you announced that I had. I said that I had removed the
information about the loss of eyes due to infection because I could
not provide a reference, and that I had removed the images of the
checks. That is not a major overhaul, and as you know, the checks are
there again. Removal of one sentence from a website the size of mine
is by no stretch of the imagination a "major overhaul". Lie, lie,
lie, Ryan.
Scooby
news:6c5f759b.03051...@posting.google.com...
I am aware of the the bitter battles going on between you and the above
mentioned names. If you have sworn off responding to them, that is fine.
My name isn't on that list, why are you ignoring me? I'm just curious to
learn why you are doing what you are.
Are you saying that people never have severe complications from wearing
contacts? That is what is implied by "It won't hurt them to NOT have
lasik."
>
> There will be a very important presentation on the psychological
> ramifications of a bad outcome on my site soon.
>
> A bad outcome isn't just a little glare, a few halos, an annoyance or
> two. It can be devastating in ways that people with good vision
> cannot understand. And when you add betrayal and dishonesty, you end
> up with a bad outcome emotionally as well. Combined, the poor vision
> and the psychological struggle make it very difficult to perform like
> you used to at work, and in your marriage and relationships with
> children and friends.
I agree it can be devastating. I believe that if doctors are going to
mislead a patient, they should lose their licenses. But, that doesn't make
lasik a bad procedure. Again, no medical procedure is perfect. People die
and have complications from surgery every day. It is, however, science that
allows us an improvement of our quality of life, at the expense of a few.
> >
> > When you post the way you do and then refuse to answer questions, it
only
> > leaves the group to conclude exactly what you stand for.
>
> I'm not going to answer to people I have no respect for. People who
> call me a liar when I have not lied. They will not own any of my
> time.
>
I'm sure some of them are calling you a liar. But, more of what I have seen
is them saying that you are being deceptive and misleading. Same thing?
Maybe. But, a perfect example is right on your own web site - front page.
You state that the link shows that an fda source states a 9% dissatisfaction
rate. Really, that is just a link to minutes of a meeting where Ron Link is
presenting this information. This is not fda provided information.
> It seems like you
> > absolutely refuse to formulate an opinion until someone makes one for
you
> > and then you argue that point.
>
> There is no secret that you are very strongly
> > anti-lasik, your website makes this quite clear.
>
> Anti-not knowing how bad a bad lasik outcome can be.
You could have fooled me. You seem very anti-lasik. Your posts strongly
suggest that. I believe that people should be informed - no argument. Once
again as I have stated in the past, there is a huge difference in education
and fear mongering.
>
> Also, your relationship
> > with SE further states your position.
>
> What is my relationship with SE? Why do all of you presume to know
> exactly what that is?
>
> There is dispute exactly what that
> > relationship is, but the fact is that you are close with them.
>
> "Close" with whom?
Once again, you won't say. I'm not presuming to know. But, I'd like to
learn. Why not just clear this up for everyone and not have to worry about
suggestions in the future. What is your relationship with Ron Link and the
likes of SE?
> >
> > Anyway, please answer what I have been trying to get you to. I don't
really
> > know how to phrase the question exactly to get complete results, but
feel
> > free to elaborate in your own way. What percentage risk do you think is
> > acceptable for Lasik?
>
> I cannot ever answer that, because a percentage means a certain number
> of people, and one person with a devastating outcome is too many for
> an elective and unnecessary but oversold procedure.
So, zero percent then? If there had been 50 million procedures and one
person lost his eyes, but every other procedure went exactly as expected
that would be too much? Anyone with those expectations should never have
even considered elective surgery. Also, I think this absolutely puts you in
the anti-lasik category since there likely will a long time before the risk
could be that low.
>
> Both minor and major complications.
> >
> > Also, please answer Glenn's question.... Do you feel that your Lasik
> > results were catastrophic?
>
> Depends on what is meant by catastrophic. Why would he ask this? He
> knows just as much as the next person what I went through. I had just
> finished telling him that I wasn't going to communicate with him
> further, and then he asks me a question.
Actually, this was a response to a long post from you to him. It is what
started this thread. He was just looking for a clarification before
responding to you. I think that is why you should answer it. Did you just
want to bitch at Glenn, or did you really want him to respond to your post?
>
> He lies and calls me a whiner, but I rarely talk about my problems.
> Let me put all of you to a challenge. What problems am I having now,
> today? I doubt you can answer, because I do not whine about them.
> This is why I have no respect for Mr. Hagele and will not address him
> again. He has lied about me repeatedly, and then he calls me a liar.
> I haven't lied. I don't need to. He doesn't seem to understand that
> there are huge networks of people with lasik complications who are not
> visible on bulletin boards and newsgroups.
Once again, tell us what your current problems are. Don't leave this to be
assumed. Is there some great secret about what your current situation is? I
think it would resolve a lot of things for the group to know.
>
> >
> > And here is a very important question: I agree with you that we could
use
> > some high volume, unbiased official studies and more available
information
> > for patients.
>
> I don't think that's totally necessary. I think we know what bad
> lasik can do to a person.
>
> Until then, what do you propose?
>
> Immediate changes in informed consent. Pictures of aberrations caused
> by bad outcomes. Show the videos that have been created for
> television reports on bad outcomes. Information about the
> psychological problems that will likely occur with a bad outcome,
> including feelings of hopelessness, guilt, betrayal, and even wanting
> to die to escape it all--the bad vision, eye pain, headaches, general
> feelings of malaise from imbalance, relationship strain, fights,
> blame, being strung along with promises of custom ablation, doctors
> telling you your corneas look great, you're crazy...the list goes on
> and on.
>
> An immediate moratorium
> > until these can get done, or Lasik as usual?
>
> They could be done next week. They could have been done four years
> ago.
>
Our current legal system does not allow for a standard to be put together
and approved in such an expeditious manner. There is a lot of red tape to
get something like that put out. Rightfully so as there are many
differences of opinion about how it should be presented.
> Something in between? What do
> > you think should be done?
> >
> > The people here don't say Lasik is "safe" as simply put by you. But, it
is
> > reasonably safe and low risk. Note your recent post that says
malpractice
> > rates are low because of that. It is not high risk, like you want
people to
> > think. What is your definition of safe?
>
> Safe means no risk of harm. It's either safe, or it's not. LASIK
> cannot be called safe.
>
> Do you only do things in your life
> > that are safe?
>
> Nope. If I wasn't somewhat of a risk taker, I wouldn't have had
> lasik. That doesn't mean that I was informed of what could happen to
> me. I wasn't.
So, you are acknowledging that you knew there was some risk? Otherwise you
wouldn't have had the surgery.
>
> Look at Leora. She was a poor candidate, yet she is finding out after
> surgery, not before when she could have made an informed choice. She
> was not an informed patient. Why is this still happening? That is
> what I have a problem with.
>
> How about your kids (assuming you have some), do you let
> > them do things that are unsafe?
>
> Well, gee, they have skateboards. They go up to the wilderness park
> behind our house alone. They walk to and from school some days. They
> ride around in the car at night with me and my impaired vision. We
> eat at restaurants. None of these things are "safe".
Why aren't you out educating the public on the risks of all these?
Especially the skateboard thing.
>
> They will never have elective surgery on their eyes, though--they have
> vowed that. They are first-hand witnesses and victims of the fallout.
>
> > My child got kicked in the teeth and it broke one of his permanent ones
> > during a soccer game. Should I be standing on the side lines warning
all
> > the parents?
>
> Yep, that they might want to consider mouthguards.
Who said he wasn't wearing one? He got kicked pretty hard. Nothing is
perfect, not even a mouthguard.
>
> > Please, please, please answer the questions above. I think I speak for
a
> > majority of this group when I say that we would all love to know exactly
> > what you stand for. I'd certainly like to stop inferring from the stuff
> > that you post and know for sure.
> >
>
> I'm not sure why you and whomever else really needs to get inside my
> head. I'm not asking for financial contributions here. I just want
> the truth to be known. I lived it. I don't want anyone else to have
> to live it, at least without knowing about it before they have their
> corneas sliced and lasered.
I think it is only fair to share your thoughts. This is a public forum.
When you just come and post articles we'd like to know your thoughts and
intent behind them. Other than the misleading tag lines, we'd like to know
the purpose. Honestly, I question if you really read and understand these
things.
>
> I feel a great responsibility to warn the unsuspecting. I talk to
> doctors who are willing to be honest, and what they tell me makes me
> sick to my stomach. For instance, ophthalmologists who have decided
> not to do refractive surgery because it greatly disturbs them to have
> so many patients coming to them, begging them to restore their damaged
> vision. Cornea transplants are up, thanks to lasik. Optometrists who
> no longer recommend it, because their patients are coming back 3-4
> years later needing correction again, and contact lenses are no longer
> easy to fit on these people with flattened corneas. I didn't know
> that doctors on FDA panels could have financial interests in approving
> devices, and that the laser manufacturers had given millions of
> dollars in stocks to them. I didn't know that people were suicidal
> due to bad lasik results, or out of work or divorced due to the strain
> their complications added to the normal challenges of being married.
> I didn't know that I might never be correctable with glasses or soft
> contact lenses again, because all my informed consent form told me was
> that I might still have to wear them. I could list a zillion things,
> but I think you get the drift.
>
> I know too much now to turn my back on all of this and forget about
> it.
>
> Mr. Hagele calls me selfish. It doesn't help me to stay involved. It
> strains my marriage, it makes my kids resentful, it takes up my time,
> and it keeps me in a depressed state. But I won't stop fighting the
> deception and lack of true informed consent.
So, your mission here is more important than your family? Personally, I
think you have your priorities all wrong.
>
> For instance, on "Extreme Makeovers" two weeks ago. The female
> patient was going to have lasik, and just before breaking for a
> commercial, the host states, "Next, ____ is going to have lasik and
> will never need to wear glasses again!"
Even Glenn would agree this is not a good thing.
>
> I wonder if she was told that she might never be ABLE to wear glasses
> again. Of course, the audience wasn't privy to whatever warnings she
> might have received, and most probably didn't know that the "throw
> away your glasses" claims were supposed to end years ago. The lies
> continue.
>
Sandy, if you really are ernest about informing the public and not fear
mongering, I implore you to change your techniques. Personally, I appreciate
anyone that would want to spend their own time trying to educate the public,
since the information is not as readily available as it could be. But, try
to be objective. Don't be so mysterious about your posts. Tame down your
site so that it is more information based and less dramatical. When you
want to post something statistical related, note the source and the possible
short comings of the study. Some of these are very small control groups in
a particular situation and are many years old. To say that they represent
the industry as a whole is very misleading and wrong. It is, in fact a lie.
Ragnar Suomi
>Jim, I have assumed a policy of ignoring posts addressed to me by Ryan
>Jensen/Ragnar/Ryan Roberts; Billy; and now Glenn because they have
Why don't you just ignore all posts here and only spread your
propaganda and spam to your cronies? There is a place just perfect
for you.. it's initials are SE.
You have zero credibility missy.
Ragnar Suomi
On 11 May 2003 12:16:55 -0700, sandyk...@netscape.net (Sandy)
wrote:
Ragnar Suomi
He's your reference - that has been established already.
The checks have returned again - and have been further altered I might
add.
I don't know what one sentence you are referencing is... that story
about the eye removals was several paragraphs.
And then there is the fake poll which you have frozen in time on your
website.. cute. Even you admitted it wasn't recording positive
responses, but you chose to include an unchanging record of this fake
poll that supports your insanity.
For someone who ignores my messages and refuses to reply to them, you
sure are posting alot of replies to me.
On 11 May 2003 12:38:12 -0700, sandyk...@netscape.net (Sandy)
wrote:
serebel
> >
>
> > Then she suggests that LASIK causes cancer,
>
> It could. We don't know yet.
>
Here we go again with the cancer mongering again.
She picks up a FICTION book called Fatal Vision, which in part of the
STORY,the author mentions a cancer line in RS,so ,of course,Sandy
picks up and runs with
it.
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
>I've never stated that I am for a moratorium either.
Have you changed your mind about refractive surgery or is this classic
double-speak ala Ron Link?
You have never stated that you are for a moratorium, but neither have
you said you are against it. Are you against a moratorium on
refractive surgery?
You have often stated that you don't think refractive surgey is
appropriate for anyone under any circumstances. Do you now state that
you believe there are circumstances under which refractive surgery is
appropriate?
> I am in favor of
>people having as much information about lasik and what it does to
>vision and the cornea as possible, so that a TRULY informed consent
>takes place.
You say that you are in favor of a truly informed consent. Do you
believe that it is possible for a refractive surgery candadate to be
truely infromed?
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
>Well, I call for a moratorium on telemarketing.
And Spam. I'd really like a moratorium on the 250-300 Spam messages I
receive every day.
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
>> I rail about a select few SE people for their dishonest and manipulative antics.
>> By some of their actions,they have lost most of their credibility.
>>
>> SErebel
>
>Thanks, serebel for the encouraging words. But don't you lose a bit of
>credibility by assuming Sandy wants a moratorium when she's never said
>anything like that?
Let's see, Sandy Keller has said that refractive surgery is not
appropriate for anyone no matter what their individual circumstances.
If her position is applied, that is a moratorium on refractive
surgery.
Sandy Keller also has NOT said that she is against a moratorium on
refractive surgery. More double-speak. This is like a SurgicalEyes
representative saying they are not against refractive surgery, but
that there are no circumstances where refractive surgery is
appropriate.
Let's not be coy. Sandy Keller has made it clear that she is against
refractive surgery for all people in all its forms under all
circumstances. What is interesting is that several people have asked
her to clarify her position on a moratorium, yet she does not reply.
This is exactly the way Ron Link acts when caught in a lie, hypocrisy,
or when confronted with a question whose answer might prove difficult
for him to justify to both the anti-refractive
surgery/surgeon/industry zealots/SurgicalEyes faithful and the
ophthalmic industry he is asking for support.
>Someone else said that Ron wants that? I've never heard that from
>him, but I could be mistaken.
It depends upon who he is talking to. If his audience is anti-LASIK,
then he supports a moratorium and he has argued for a moratorium. If
his audience is the ophthalmic industry he is hitting up for support,
then he has not called for a moratorium. If you would like a document
showing all of Ron Link's flip-flopping back and forth, let me know.
I'll send it to you. I have several of these on different subjects.
>All I see are people trying to give
>information as to what can go wrong and what actually happens to the
>eye with refractive surgery. Give a voice to the casualties. I really
>don't see the problem with that. Isn't that helping being honest about
>a serious surgery?
How is it truthful when someone puts up a subject line that states 50%
of LASIK patients get DLK, when the article is from 1998 and relates
to a small sub-group of patients? That is misinformation. That is
manipulation. That is lying the truth.
>It's mostly positive things about this surgery that the public knows.
>Having a few people tell another side isn't about whining. It's
>presenting a realistic viewpoint and experience.
If all that Keller, et al did was present a realistic viewpoint or
experience, then I don't think anybody would have a problem. Until
recently, I openly supported Keller and Hanson's participation here as
an example of what can go wrong. At this point, I have come to the
conclusion that their participation is of no positive value.
When SandySpam floods this newsgroup with case reports of 2 patients
out of over 4 million who had a particular problem with an
inflammatory and misleading subject line, everyone should object.
That is, everyone who wants truthful information disseminated.
>snip<
> It's tough being on the negative side of something.
Especially when the negative result affects such a small percentage.
>But that's my
>experience. I can't lie. If someone has a great outcome, I'm happy for
>them. If it's a good outcome, it's great. If not, it's devestating and
>a daily struggle filled with multiple problems for years and years.
Or it is in-between - a clinically measurable complication that is
manageable and the patient considers it to be an acceptable trade-off
to have a reduced need for corrective lenses.
Refractive surgery is not the battle between perfection and disaster
that the zealots like to make it out to be. There are many variables
and much of that depends upon the individual's circumstances.
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
>I've never stated that I am for a moratorium either.
Have you changed your mind about refractive surgery or is this classic
double-speak ala Ron Link?
You have never stated that you are for a moratorium, but neither have
you said you are against it. Are you against a moratorium on
refractive surgery?
You have often stated that you don't think refractive surgey is
appropriate for anyone under any circumstances. Do you now state that
you believe there are circumstances under which refractive surgery is
appropriate?
> I am in favor of
>people having as much information about lasik and what it does to
>vision and the cornea as possible, so that a TRULY informed consent
>takes place.
You say that you are in favor of a truly informed consent. Do you
believe that it is possible for a refractive surgery candadate to be
truely infromed?
Glenn Hagele
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
manipulate those who have not yet learned.
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
>Jim, I have assumed a policy of ignoring posts addressed to me by Ryan
>Jensen/Ragnar/Ryan Roberts; Billy; and now Glenn because they have
>quoted me as saying things I have not said.
Sandy, I have never quoted you as saying something you have not said.
But I do ask you questions that you obviously don't want to answer.
That's okay, any reader of the thread can draw his or her own
conclusion by your lack of response to legitimate questions.
>Mr. Hagele calls me selfish.
And self-centered, and arrogant, and totally without any understanding
of what real "shattered lives" are about while you insult those who
have real vision challenges while you whine about your 20/20 aberrated
vision.
You are not in the least concerned about people being informed. To
you, information is just something to twist so you can try to scare
people away from making their own decision about refractive surgery.
You have already decided for the world what is right for them and you
obviously have no problem doing whatever it takes to manipulating them
into doing what you have decided for them is best. You have stated it
clearly and succinctly. You do not believe refractive surgery is
appropriate for anyone under any circumstances. Since the facts do
not provide a reasonable justification for this position, you must
manipulate, misinform, and outfight lie (8 eyes being removed) to try
to scare them anyway.
As I have said, the real world doesn't not give a flying fig about
Sandy Keller, because the real world knows what real problems are.
leukoma
There will never be a moratorium on refractive surgery, and so the
discussion is largely academic. The FDA will never get into the
business of regulating surgery, which is the practice of medicine.
They only regulate drugs and devices. Market forces will determine
the future.
DrG
Sandy
> "Sandy" <sandyk...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:6c5f759b.03051...@posting.google.com...
> > "Scooby" <mmsc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<busva.67070$4P1.6...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> > > > I've never stated that I am for a moratorium either. I am in favor of
> > > > people having as much information about lasik and what it does to
> > > > vision and the cornea as possible, so that a TRULY informed consent
> > > > takes place. I am in favor of MAJOR changes in advertising and an end
> > > > to the constant barrage of hype and people being told that the new
> > > > lasik is safe. I don't believe that the word "safe" is appropriate
> > > > for refractive surgery. I am in favor of necessary scientific
> > > > studies and longterm followups which have not been done yet.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sandy,
> > >
> > > I fully expect you to ignore this post and the questions in it, just
> like
> > > you always do.
First of all, Jim, I have not knowingly ignored you, but I'm sure I
haven't read all of your posts. Aren't you a fairly recent arrival?
What else have you asked me?
So, prove me wrong - let people know exactly where you
> > > stand.
I'm pretty sure I did in the last post.
> >
> > Jim, I have assumed a policy of ignoring posts addressed to me by Ryan
> > Jensen/Ragnar/Ryan Roberts; Billy; and now Glenn because they have
> > quoted me as saying things I have not said. The latest now is that I
> > want a moratorium, which I have never said. The front page on my site
> > basically states that I want people who are considering lasik to know
> > all of the negatives that go along with it. They get all of the
> > positives from the hype, the docs, the ads. It won't hurt them to NOT
> > have lasik. It can hurt them to have it. I believe that everyone
> > going into that surgery has a right to know EVERY bad thing that can
> > happen and more importantly, to understand how a bad outcome will
> > affect their life, their job and their relationships.
>
> I am aware of the the bitter battles going on between you and the above
> mentioned names. If you have sworn off responding to them, that is fine.
> My name isn't on that list, why are you ignoring me? I'm just curious to
> learn why you are doing what you are.
Because there are still bad candidates being operated on, mis- and
under-informed.
>
> Are you saying that people never have severe complications from wearing
> contacts? That is what is implied by "It won't hurt them to NOT have
> lasik."
I'm saying they won't have lasik complications if they don't have
lasik. How do you know they aren't wearing glasses.
>
> >
> > There will be a very important presentation on the psychological
> > ramifications of a bad outcome on my site soon.
> >
> > A bad outcome isn't just a little glare, a few halos, an annoyance or
> > two. It can be devastating in ways that people with good vision
> > cannot understand. And when you add betrayal and dishonesty, you end
> > up with a bad outcome emotionally as well. Combined, the poor vision
> > and the psychological struggle make it very difficult to perform like
> > you used to at work, and in your marriage and relationships with
> > children and friends.
>
> I agree it can be devastating. I believe that if doctors are going to
> mislead a patient, they should lose their licenses. But, that doesn't make
> lasik a bad procedure. Again, no medical procedure is perfect. People die
> and have complications from surgery every day. It is, however, science that
> allows us an improvement of our quality of life, at the expense of a few.
And when you witness first-hand those few, some of whom are now my
friends, you become angry at the experiment on human vision. Those
who have good results and are distanced from the casualties will never
understand.
>
> > >
> > > When you post the way you do and then refuse to answer questions, it
> only
> > > leaves the group to conclude exactly what you stand for.
I don't think it is any mystery what I stand for, and I stated it
previously. FULL INFORMATION PRIOR TO CONSENT.
> >
> > I'm not going to answer to people I have no respect for. People who
> > call me a liar when I have not lied. They will not own any of my
> > time.
> >
>
> I'm sure some of them are calling you a liar. But, more of what I have seen
> is them saying that you are being deceptive and misleading. Same thing?
> Maybe. But, a perfect example is right on your own web site - front page.
> You state that the link shows that an fda source states a 9% dissatisfaction
> rate. Really, that is just a link to minutes of a meeting where Ron Link is
> presenting this information. This is not fda provided information.
It's from an FDA panel meeting. Dr. Grimmett, an FDA panel member,
said it, not Ron.
>
> > It seems like you
> > > absolutely refuse to formulate an opinion until someone makes one for
> you
> > > and then you argue that point.
> >
> > There is no secret that you are very strongly
> > > anti-lasik, your website makes this quite clear.
> >
> > Anti-not knowing how bad a bad lasik outcome can be.
>
> You could have fooled me. You seem very anti-lasik.
Maybe you just aren't seeing things clearly.
Your posts strongly
> suggest that. I believe that people should be informed - no argument. Once
> again as I have stated in the past, there is a huge difference in education
> and fear mongering.
In the past when? Were you posting under another name?
>
> >
> > Also, your relationship
> > > with SE further states your position.
> >
> > What is my relationship with SE? Why do all of you presume to know
> > exactly what that is?
> >
> > There is dispute exactly what that
> > > relationship is, but the fact is that you are close with them.
> >
> > "Close" with whom?
>
> Once again, you won't say. I'm not presuming to know. But, I'd like to
> learn. Why not just clear this up for everyone and not have to worry about
> suggestions in the future. What is your relationship with Ron Link and the
> likes of SE?
>
> > >
> > > Anyway, please answer what I have been trying to get you to. I don't
> really
> > > know how to phrase the question exactly to get complete results, but
> feel
> > > free to elaborate in your own way. What percentage risk do you think is
> > > acceptable for Lasik?
> >
> > I cannot ever answer that, because a percentage means a certain number
> > of people, and one person with a devastating outcome is too many for
> > an elective and unnecessary but oversold procedure.
>
> So, zero percent then?
It's not the numbers. It's the failure to provide full informed
consent. It's the lies, hype, manipulation.
If there had been 50 million procedures and one
> person lost his eyes, but every other procedure went exactly as expected
> that would be too much? Anyone with those expectations should never have
> even considered elective surgery. Also, I think this absolutely puts you in
> the anti-lasik category since there likely will a long time before the risk
> could be that low.
Most likely never. The cornea is not plastic.
>
> >
> > Both minor and major complications.
> > >
> > > Also, please answer Glenn's question.... Do you feel that your Lasik
> > > results were catastrophic?
> >
> > Depends on what is meant by catastrophic. Why would he ask this? He
> > knows just as much as the next person what I went through. I had just
> > finished telling him that I wasn't going to communicate with him
> > further, and then he asks me a question.
>
> Actually, this was a response to a long post from you to him. It is what
> started this thread. He was just looking for a clarification before
> responding to you. I think that is why you should answer it. Did you just
> want to bitch at Glenn
My goal was to end the exchange between us permanently, because he
cannot seem to refrain from calling me a liar, a bitch, a whiner,
selfish and everything else he calls me.
, or did you really want him to respond to your post?
No. I want him to find something else to talk about and leave me
alone.
>
>
> >
> > He lies and calls me a whiner, but I rarely talk about my problems.
> > Let me put all of you to a challenge. What problems am I having now,
> > today? I doubt you can answer, because I do not whine about them.
> > This is why I have no respect for Mr. Hagele and will not address him
> > again. He has lied about me repeatedly, and then he calls me a liar.
> > I haven't lied. I don't need to. He doesn't seem to understand that
> > there are huge networks of people with lasik complications who are not
> > visible on bulletin boards and newsgroups.
>
> Once again, tell us what your current problems are.
If I am such a whiner, you should all know exactly what my problems
are. Since you don't, that proves that I don't come here and whine
about them. Doesn't it?
Don't leave this to be
> assumed.
Assume what?
Is there some great secret about what your current situation is?
No.
> think it would resolve a lot of things for the group to know.
My website documents my progress. Why do I need to drag my story over
here? What I endure has absolutely nothing to do with what I post.
>
> >
> > >
> > > And here is a very important question: I agree with you that we could
> use
> > > some high volume, unbiased official studies and more available
> information
> > > for patients.
> >
> > I don't think that's totally necessary. I think we know what bad
> > lasik can do to a person.
> >
> > Until then, what do you propose?
> >
> > Immediate changes in informed consent. Pictures of aberrations caused
> > by bad outcomes. Show the videos that have been created for
> > television reports on bad outcomes. Information about the
> > psychological problems that will likely occur with a bad outcome,
> > including feelings of hopelessness, guilt, betrayal, and even wanting
> > to die to escape it all--the bad vision, eye pain, headaches, general
> > feelings of malaise from imbalance, relationship strain, fights,
> > blame, being strung along with promises of custom ablation, doctors
> > telling you your corneas look great, you're crazy...the list goes on
> > and on.
> >
> > An immediate moratorium
> > > until these can get done, or Lasik as usual?
> >
> > They could be done next week. They could have been done four years
> > ago.
> >
>
> Our current legal system does not allow for a standard to be put together
> and approved in such an expeditious manner.
The legal system doesn't have to get involved. Each doctor could make
a huge change immediately.
There is a lot of red tape to
> get something like that put out.
No, there isn't.
Rightfully so as there are many
> differences of opinion about how it should be presented.
>
> > Something in between? What do
> > > you think should be done?
> > >
> > > The people here don't say Lasik is "safe" as simply put by you. But, it
> is
> > > reasonably safe and low risk. Note your recent post that says
> malpractice
> > > rates are low because of that. It is not high risk, like you want
> people to
> > > think. What is your definition of safe?
> >
> > Safe means no risk of harm. It's either safe, or it's not. LASIK
> > cannot be called safe.
> >
> > Do you only do things in your life
> > > that are safe?
> >
> > Nope. If I wasn't somewhat of a risk taker, I wouldn't have had
> > lasik. That doesn't mean that I was informed of what could happen to
> > me. I wasn't.
>
> So, you are acknowledging that you knew there was some risk? Otherwise you
> wouldn't have had the surgery.
Yes, I was told that I had a 5% chance of needing a second surgery.
That was risk enough to make me fearful. I didn't know of any other
risks.
>
> >
> > Look at Leora. She was a poor candidate, yet she is finding out after
> > surgery, not before when she could have made an informed choice. She
> > was not an informed patient. Why is this still happening? That is
> > what I have a problem with.
This was a question you failed to answer, Jim.
> >
> > How about your kids (assuming you have some), do you let
> > > them do things that are unsafe?
> >
> > Well, gee, they have skateboards. They go up to the wilderness park
> > behind our house alone. They walk to and from school some days. They
> > ride around in the car at night with me and my impaired vision. We
> > eat at restaurants. None of these things are "safe".
>
> Why aren't you out educating the public on the risks of all these?
> Especially the skateboard thing.
>
Because I bought them skateboards knowing they could fall off of them.
I bought LASIK not knowing what could happen to my vision.
> >
> > They will never have elective surgery on their eyes, though--they have
> > vowed that. They are first-hand witnesses and victims of the fallout.
> >
> > > My child got kicked in the teeth and it broke one of his permanent ones
> > > during a soccer game. Should I be standing on the side lines warning
> all
> > > the parents?
> >
> > Yep, that they might want to consider mouthguards.
>
> Who said he wasn't wearing one? He got kicked pretty hard. Nothing is
> perfect, not even a mouthguard.
I'm sure all of the parents on your child's team know what happened to
him, correct? Haven't you talked about it?
And how can you compare an accident to an elective surgery
complication?
>
> >
> > > Please, please, please answer the questions above. I think I speak for
> a
> > > majority of this group when I say that we would all love to know exactly
> > > what you stand for. I'd certainly like to stop inferring from the stuff
> > > that you post and know for sure.
Answered above and previously.
> > >
> >
> > I'm not sure why you and whomever else really needs to get inside my
> > head. I'm not asking for financial contributions here. I just want
> > the truth to be known. I lived it. I don't want anyone else to have
> > to live it, at least without knowing about it before they have their
> > corneas sliced and lasered.
>
> I think it is only fair to share your thoughts.
Tell me your thoughts, then. All of them, in one post. I have a
right to know exactly where you stand also.
This is a public forum.
> When you just come and post articles we'd like to know your thoughts and
> intent behind them. Other than the misleading tag lines, we'd like to know
> the purpose.
To tell you the truth, a majority of the articles I post come to me
via industry people, and I pass them along with the same subjects they
provide for them, or I pull quotes directly from the article. How is
that a lie unless you are claiming that these doctor case reports are
lies, or comments in the articles by the doctors interviewed are lies?
Honestly, I question if you really read and understand these
> things.
I understand them just fine, thanks.
Just like Glenn, twisting what I say.
>
> >
> > For instance, on "Extreme Makeovers" two weeks ago. The female
> > patient was going to have lasik, and just before breaking for a
> > commercial, the host states, "Next, ____ is going to have lasik and
> > will never need to wear glasses again!"
>
> Even Glenn would agree this is not a good thing.
>
> >
> > I wonder if she was told that she might never be ABLE to wear glasses
> > again. Of course, the audience wasn't privy to whatever warnings she
> > might have received, and most probably didn't know that the "throw
> > away your glasses" claims were supposed to end years ago. The lies
> > continue.
> >
>
> Sandy, if you really are ernest about informing the public and not fear
> mongering, I implore you to change your techniques. Personally, I appreciate
> anyone that would want to spend their own time trying to educate the public,
> since the information is not as readily available as it could be. But, try
> to be objective. Don't be so mysterious about your posts.
I haven't been mysterious. Show me a "mysterious" post and why you
think it is so. I've made my story an open book to the world, so I
don't understand what you are getting at.
Tame down your
> site so that it is more information based and less dramatical.
Sorry, my story is pretty dramatic. One doctor told me, "Your eye
must scare the hell out of your doctors. This is not what we like to
see when people have lasik. I think you need a transplant." Coming
from a second opinion, those are pretty dramatic words.
When you
> want to post something statistical related, note the source and the possible
> short comings of the study. Some of these are very small control groups in
> a particular situation and are many years old.
That doesn't make them irrelevant.
To say that they represent
> the industry as a whole is very misleading and wrong.
I never said that. But then again, Leora assumes that just because
there were only two patients mentioned in one case report, only two
patients have had that particular problem. No one corrected her on
that and told her that these two patients were only the experience of
one doctor and that most likely there were other doctors elsewhere
who'd had patients with the same complications.
That's lying by omission. If information doesn't suit Glenn, he makes
sure to dispute it vehemently. If there is a lack of information
which suits Glenn, he lets it stand.