None of your business, Glenn!
Flattened Corneas
<your $200k+ malpractice settlement went to <SurgicalEyes? You are
<listed as a donor, aren't you?
You state that patients have given portions of their settlements to SE.
Who has, and how much, Glenn?
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
<flattene...@yahoo.com> wrote:
><Sandy, how much (if any) of
><your $200k+ malpractice settlement went to <SurgicalEyes? You are
><listed as a donor, aren't you?
No, it's not really any of my business how much of your malpractice
claim you gave to SurgicalEyes, but I would expect that before
supporting SurgicalEyes directly, the refractive surgery industry
would be interested in how much money SurgicalEyes has received,
continues to receive, and expects to receive from lawsuits against the
refractive surgery industry.
>You state that patients have given portions of their settlements to SE.
>Who has, and how much, Glenn?
Look for yourself Sandy.
http://www.surgicaleyes.org/Friends.htm and at
http://surgicaleyes.atinfopop.com/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=636293455&f=4524074921&m=4354041291&r=8524002391#8524002391
This list shows individual donors, not corporate donors like TLC,
including people who have had no malpractice claims, successful
claims, and unsuccessful claims. The listing shows that you donated
in 2000 and 2001. Interestingly, it does not show a donation in 2002.
Did you go anonymous or not donate? With all the anti-LASIK and
pro-SurgicalEyes work you do, that should be more than enough of a
donation. Again, none of my business, but an interesting point.
I understand that Brenda Ross, an Oregon patient who at the Los
Angeles SurgicalEyes patient meeting gave a heart wrentching speech
about her disasterous surgery, recently settled her case and almost
immediately wrote a check to SurgicalEyes. This is second-hand
information (I've not seen the check, etc.), but from reliable
sources. You know Brenda. Perhaps you could get a confirmation about
how much SE received from her malpractice claim.
Of course it is not surprising that patients who received a
malpractice settlement would give some of that money to SurgicalEyes.
Patients who don't receive malpractice settlements too. It seems very
reasonable.
SE is a very supportive organization and has been very, very helpful
to many patients with postoperative concerns. SE has malpractice
attorneys listed at its website who will help patients with claims.
SE has arranged for plaintiffs to receive wavefront printouts that
show decisively that high order aberrations exist and can be used in a
malpractice claim against a refractive surgeon. I know that Ron Link
has personally advised patients on malpractice issues and techniques.
Such support and guidance naturally would, and should, elicit
financial support from its beneficiaries.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
http://www.usaeyes.org
glenn....@usaeyes.org
I am not a doctor.
Cindy
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Apr 2003 15:10:45 GMT, "Flattened Corneas"
> <flattene...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> ><Sandy, how much (if any) of
> ><your $200k+ malpractice settlement went to <SurgicalEyes? You are
> ><listed as a donor, aren't you?
>
> No, it's not really any of my business how much of your malpractice
> claim you gave to SurgicalEyes, but I would expect that before
> supporting SurgicalEyes directly, the refractive surgery industry
> would be interested in how much money SurgicalEyes has received,
> continues to receive, and expects to receive from lawsuits against the
> refractive surgery industry.
>
Maybe it's just me, but don't you think that's just a little bit nosy? Geez. How about a compromise? The industry
could reasonably ESTIMATE the dollar amount donated and then deduct that figure from what they intend to give to
SurgicalEyes. For example, let's say the industry wanted to give $1,000,000.00 in support to SurgicalEyes. (For
which we would thank them very much). It is ESTIMATED that SurgicalEyes would receive $5000.00 from lawsuits that
year. The industry would then donate the difference: $995,000.00 for that year. See how easy that is? Makes me
happy just thinking about it :o).
Cindy
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
that capitalizes on lawsuits against the industry and promotes such
litigation. Then again, maybe they don't care. We shall see.
That is absolutely not to say that patients should no sue and patients
should not use SurgicalEyes. Where there is evidence of malpractice,
a patient should exercise all available options for redress. If a
patient has long-term refractive surgery problems, SurgicalEyes can be
an excellent resource for information.
Flattened Corneas
"Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance"
<glenn....@usaeyes.org> wrote in message
news:m2so8v468db9k2k5q...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 03 Apr 2003 15:10:45 GMT, "Flattened Corneas"
> <flattene...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> ><Sandy, how much (if any) of
> ><your $200k+ malpractice settlement went to <SurgicalEyes? You are
> ><listed as a donor, aren't you?
>
> No, it's not really any of my business how much of your malpractice
> claim you gave to SurgicalEyes, but I would expect that before
> supporting SurgicalEyes directly, the refractive surgery industry
> would be interested in how much money SurgicalEyes has received,
> continues to receive, and expects to receive from lawsuits against the
> refractive surgery industry.
Really none of their business either, and if the malpractice continues, the
judgments and
and therefore donations from such judgments will likely continue as well.
>
> >You state that patients have given portions of their settlements to SE.
> >Who has, and how much, Glenn?
>
> Look for yourself Sandy.
> http://www.surgicaleyes.org/Friends.htm and at
>
http://surgicaleyes.atinfopop.com/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=636293455&f=4524074921
&m=4354041291&r=8524002391#8524002391
I don't see any amounts listed, Glenn.
>
> This list shows individual donors, not corporate donors like TLC,
> including people who have had no malpractice claims, successful
> claims, and unsuccessful claims. The listing shows that you donated
> in 2000 and 2001. Interestingly, it does not show a donation in 2002.
> Did you go anonymous or not donate?
None of your business.
With all the anti-LASIK and
> pro-SurgicalEyes work you do, that should be more than enough of a
> donation.
We all thank you for your opinion.
Again, none of my business, but an interesting point.
Who does it interest, besides you?
>
> I understand that Brenda Ross, an Oregon patient who at the Los
> Angeles SurgicalEyes patient meeting gave a heart wrentching speech
> about her disasterous surgery, recently settled her case and almost
> immediately wrote a check to SurgicalEyes. This is second-hand
> information (I've not seen the check, etc.), but from reliable
> sources. You know Brenda. Perhaps you could get a confirmation about
> how much SE received from her malpractice claim.
Do you really think I would betray Brenda by telling YOU??????
>
> Of course it is not surprising that patients who received a
> malpractice settlement would give some of that money to SurgicalEyes.
> Patients who don't receive malpractice settlements too. It seems very
> reasonable.
Yes, people who are helped in various manners by Surgical Eyes because they
cannot find that help elsewhere are likely to express their appreciation by
donating.
>
> SE is a very supportive organization and has been very, very helpful
> to many patients with postoperative concerns. SE has malpractice
> attorneys listed at its website who will help patients with claims.
And optometrists who fit post-refractives, surgeons, etc.
> SE has arranged for plaintiffs to receive wavefront printouts that
> show decisively that high order aberrations exist and can be used in a
> malpractice claim against a refractive surgeon.
Yes, isn't it great that the industry has finally provided us with the means
to quantify and prove without a doubt our problems after years of throwing
"20/20 is perfect vision" at us?
I know that Ron Link
> has personally advised patients on malpractice issues and techniques.
> Such support and guidance naturally would, and should, elicit
> financial support from its beneficiaries.
That is just one area in which Surgical Eyes helps patients, and is not the
focus
of Surgical Eyes. The main concern is that the damaged need rehabilitation,
and
Ron puts huge amounts of effort into obtaining and publishing information on
the
most promising technologies to come. He coordinates care for patients,
finds ways to
get those patients to doctors who might help, discusses complicated cases
with the most
appropriate doctors and provides a supportive environment for those damaged
by
refractive surgery, among a zillion other things. Ron is very protective of
the patients
arriving daily at the hospital he built.
Surgical Eyes has also received donations from patients who were considering
or were
scheduled for surgery but discovered SE just in time and decided not to go
through with
the operation. They have gratefully donated in appreciation of being warned
in time to
prevent their own disasters.
You know Glenn, that there are a lot of ophthalmologists who don't like
refractive surgery and don't
do it, even though they could be making millions just like their colleagues.
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
>yadda yadda snip<
> I know that Ron Link
>> has personally advised patients on malpractice issues and techniques.
>> Such support and guidance naturally would, and should, elicit
>> financial support from its beneficiaries.
>
>That is just one area in which Surgical Eyes helps patients, and is not the
>focus
>of Surgical Eyes. The main concern is that the damaged need rehabilitation,
>snip<
And therein lies the great tragedy. If SurgicalEyes only helped
patients with rehabilitation, they would receive support from all
areas, but instead of rehabilitation of patients, SurgicalEyes and Ron
Link apparently decided that it was necessary to punish the refractive
surgery industry. I don't think the refractive surgeons and industry
who were dressed up to be demons by Link and the SE faithful are going
to so quickly forget. It is great that a few noble doctors are
willing to overlook this fact, but it would be foolish to think the
industry is going to welcome SE or Link with open arms or open
wallets. A few, yes, but not many and not much.
<snip>
> Ron is very protective of
>the patients
>arriving daily at the hospital he built.
You have GOT to be kidding. Comparing the rancor, rhetoric,
misinformation, and anti-refractive surgery/surgeon/industry
statements of SurgicalEyes to a hospital is lunacy. If that is Ron's
opinion, his ego is bigger than I though. If it is your
characterization, you really should take a serious look at your idol
worshiping.
>Surgical Eyes has also received donations from patients who were considering
>or were
>scheduled for surgery but discovered SE just in time and decided not to go
>through with
>the operation. They have gratefully donated in appreciation of being warned
>in time to
>prevent their own disasters.
Yet another reason for the refractive surgery industry to dislike Link
and SurgicalEyes. If anyone goes there and asks for legitimate
information about refractive surgery, the SE faithful jump on him or
her with all their boogey man gloom and doom stories to scare them
away. Just another form of punishment, IMO. Scare away all the
patients (even ones who have no reason to believe they are at unusual
risk for problems) and destroy refractive surgery. It has been part
and parcel of SurgicalEyes since the beginning.
>You know Glenn, that there are a lot of ophthalmologists who don't like
>refractive surgery and don't
>do it, even though they could be making millions just like their colleagues.
As I've said for the umpteenth time, refractive surgery is not for
everybody. Some surgeons know their limitations.
Flattened Corneas
"BIG SNIP- Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance" <BIG SNIP>
wrote in message news:r08r8v8dbpjt494cj...@4ax.com...
>
> >yadda yadda snip<
>
> > I know that Ron Link
> >> has personally advised patients on malpractice issues and techniques.
> >> Such support and guidance naturally would, and should, elicit
> >> financial support from its beneficiaries.
> >
> >That is just one area in which Surgical Eyes helps patients, and is not
the
> >focus
> >of Surgical Eyes. The main concern is that the damaged need
rehabilitation,
> >snip<
>
> And therein lies the great tragedy. If SurgicalEyes only helped
> patients with rehabilitation, they would receive support from all
> areas,
Why should Ron limit the assistance offered to strictly rehab, when he is
able to assist in so many other ways also?
> but instead of rehabilitation of patients,
What do you mean, instead of?
SurgicalEyes and Ron
> Link apparently decided that it was necessary to punish the refractive
> surgery industry. I don't think the refractive surgeons and industry
> who were dressed up to be demons by Link and the SE faithful are going
> to so quickly forget. It is great that a few noble doctors are
> willing to overlook this fact, but it would be foolish to think the
> industry is going to welcome SE or Link with open arms or open
> wallets. A few, yes, but not many and not much.
The ones who do understand the damage, betrayal and desertion inflicted on
some lasik patients. Noble is a great word for them. What I like to say is
that they have a heart.
>
>
>
> <snip>
> > Ron is very protective of
> >the patients
> >arriving daily at the hospital he built.
>
> You have GOT to be kidding. Comparing the rancor, rhetoric,
> misinformation,
Misinformation? Read the LASIK-for-sale websites for that.
and anti-refractive surgery/surgeon/industry
> statements of SurgicalEyes to a hospital is lunacy. If that is Ron's
> opinion, his ego is bigger than I though. If it is your
> characterization, you really should take a serious look at your idol
> worshiping.
>
I'm sure the patients would disagree with you.
> >Surgical Eyes has also received donations from patients who were
considering
> >or were
> >scheduled for surgery but discovered SE just in time and decided not to
go
> >through with
> >the operation. They have gratefully donated in appreciation of being
warned
> >in time to
> >prevent their own disasters.
>
> Yet another reason for the refractive surgery industry to dislike Link
> and SurgicalEyes. If anyone goes there and asks for legitimate
> information about refractive surgery, the SE faithful jump on him or
> her with all their boogey man gloom and doom stories
Which is the legitimate information we've been able to provide, since the
industry does not.
to scare them
> away.
Just another form of punishment, IMO. Scare away all the
> patients (even ones who have no reason to believe they are at unusual
> risk for problems)
Even so-called "excellent candidates" have suffered devastating
complications due to equipment failures and unexpected healing problems,
lasers being mis-programmed, etc. etc. etc. LASIK is always a roll of the
dice.
and destroy refractive surgery. It has been part
> and parcel of SurgicalEyes since the beginning.
No, I think that it's just a natural consequence of thousands of unhappy
patients being united and having a powerful voice.
>
>
> >You know Glenn, that there are a lot of ophthalmologists who don't like
> >refractive surgery and don't
> >do it, even though they could be making millions just like their
colleagues.
>
> As I've said for the umpteenth time, refractive surgery is not for
> everybody. Some surgeons know their limitations.
Well, to hear some speak, monkeys could do lasik.
No, some surgeons don't agree with elective surgery on the eyes.
>
> BIG SNIP> Executive Director
> Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
> http://www.usaeyes.org
>yadda yadda sn...@usaeyes.org
>
> I am not a doctor.
And it's still none of your business.
Ragnar Suomi
assist him by flushing. He could be a sidekick for Mr. Hankey on
Southpark.
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
>> And therein lies the great tragedy. If SurgicalEyes only helped
>> patients with rehabilitation, they would receive support from all
>> areas,
>
>Why should Ron limit the assistance offered to strictly rehab, when he is
>able to assist in so many other ways also?
Why would Link limit his and SurgicalEyes' assistance to patient
rehabilitation? Because he could have received support from all areas
of the refractive surgery arena and been able to more quickly, fully,
and efficiently direct patients to where they could receive needed
care.
Ron Link can (and does) what he pleases. If he wants to push patients
toward malpractice, he can. If he wants to recommend the malpractice
attorneys that help support him, he can. If he wants to solicit
donations when the malpractice claim is settled, he can. If he wants
to show refractive surgery in the worst light possible in every news
article, he can. If he wants to demonize refractive
surgery/surgeons/industry, he can. If he wants to work against an RS
patient to help get donations from TLC, he can. And if he now wants
to say that he really isn't anti-LASIK to try to get money from the
industry he and the SE faithful have worked so hard to limit or
destroy, he can.
What I'm saying is that SE should not be surprised if the refractive
surgery industry does not buy his lip service and decides to ignore
him. Especially when his actions have not appreciably changed one
bit.
>> but instead of rehabilitation of patients,
>
>What do you mean, instead of?
Perhaps all the SurgicalEyes associated anti-LASIK efforts could have
been better spent on rehabilitation of patients in need.
>> It is great that a few noble doctors are
>> willing to overlook this fact, but it would be foolish to think the
>> industry is going to welcome SE or Link with open arms or open
>> wallets. A few, yes, but not many and not much.
>
>The ones who do understand the damage, betrayal and desertion inflicted on
>some lasik patients. Noble is a great word for them. What I like to say is
>that they have a heart.
You have shown with great efficacy and precision EXACTLY why doctors
should try to help patients, but avoid association with SurgicalEyes.
In this statement you try to twist refractive surgeons' efforts to
help patients as some sort of acknowledgement or apology for "damage,
betrayal and desertion (sic) inflicted on some lasik patients."
Just because a doctor elects to help a patient that was directed to
him or her by SurgicalEyes does not for a moment mean that doctor has
bought into the SurgicalEyes "crisis" mentality or upholds the
SurgicalEyes anti-refractive surgery/surgeon/industry political
position.
Do you really think that the refractive surgeons listed at
SurgicalEyes volunteer to help because they believe there is "damage,
betrayal, and direction (sic) inflicted" as a matter of course? Ask
them and they will undoubtedly tell you they are there because they
might be able to help some individuals, not because they want to take
up teh SurgicalEyes cause. If anything, doctors help in spite of
SurgicalEyes.
This is EXACTLY why I have said that patients will receive more
acceptance from doctors if the SurgicalEyes baggage is not attached.
If a doctor helps a patient through SurgicalEyes, the SE faithful
twist the doctor's the willingness to provide patient care into an
endorsement of the SurgicalEyes anti-refractive
surgery/surgeon/industry position. It is not; and as long as people
like you keep pointing to these doctors and saying that they are
endorsing the SurgicalEyes political position, they will (and should)
run the opposite direction.
Patients can receive help without SurgicalEyes in the middle of
things, applying its own agenda. SurgicalEyes may have been needed
before, but it is getting in the way now.
>> <snip>
>> > Ron is very protective of
>> >the patients
>> >arriving daily at the hospital he built.
>>
>> You have GOT to be kidding. Comparing the rancor, rhetoric,
>> misinformation,
>
>Misinformation? Read the LASIK-for-sale websites for that.
Yet another of the typical anti-LASIK rhetoric and warped logic.
Misinformation at a pro-LASIK website DOES NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES
EXCUSE MISINFORMATION ON AN ANTI-LASIK WEBSITE. Get a clue Sandy.
Two wrongs do not make a right. Misinformation is misinformation no
matter what the political position or source.
>>and anti-refractive surgery/surgeon/industry
>> statements of SurgicalEyes to a hospital is lunacy. If that is Ron's
>> opinion, his ego is bigger than I though. If it is your
>> characterization, you really should take a serious look at your idol
>> worshiping.
>>
>I'm sure the patients would disagree with you.
As I said, you should really take another look at your idol
worshipping.
>
>> >Surgical Eyes has also received donations from patients who were
>considering
>> >or were
>> >scheduled for surgery but discovered SE just in time and decided not to
>go
>> >through with
>> >the operation. They have gratefully donated in appreciation of being
>warned
>> >in time to
>> >prevent their own disasters.
"(P)revent their own disasters." With statements like that, it is no
wonder that refractive surgeons are not flocking to SurgicalEyes.
(Sarcasm fully engaged.)
You and many of the SE faithful have decided that every refractive
surgery is a disaster. I have seen patients post at the SE bulletin
board that they had a great outcome and were quite happy, only to be
pounced upon as being insensitive or that some day they too were going
to regret having refractive surgery.
It is true that a small percentage of refractive surgery patients have
unresolved problems, but your position that no one is appropriate for
refractive surgery and that all refractive surgery is disastrous
ignores the reality of the millions who are delighted with their
outcome.
>> Yet another reason for the refractive surgery industry to dislike Link
>> and SurgicalEyes. If anyone goes there and asks for legitimate
>> information about refractive surgery, the SE faithful jump on him or
>> her with all their boogey man gloom and doom stories
>
>Which is the legitimate information we've been able to provide, since the
>industry does not.
Not true. According to Link, the ASCRS Patient Screening Guidelines
are "a good start", even though they indicate the complication rate is
less than 1%. AllAboutVision is an excellent source of accurate and
unbiased information. Trattler's AskLasikDocs is another good source
for direct doctor involvement. CRSQA's objective information is
funded by certification fees from refractive surgeons. Directly or
indirectly, many elements of the refractive surgery industry provide
good information.
Sandy, when someone who had RK nearly a decade ago tells someone
considering excimer laser assisted refractive surgery not to have it
because s/he had a bad outcome, that is a scare tactic. When a high
hyperope tells a low myope not to have LASIK because s/he is
dissatisfied with the outcome, that is boogey man tactics. When
someone tells a potential LASIK candidate going directly to an
ophthalmologist not to have surgery because his or her comanaging
optometrist screwed up, that is gloom and doom misinformation.
It is common for the SurgicalEyes faithful to use their personal bad
experience as a reason someone should not have surgery when their
personal circumstances have nothing to do with the circumstances of
the person considering refractive surgery.
>to scare them
>> away.
>
> Just another form of punishment, IMO. Scare away all the
>> patients (even ones who have no reason to believe they are at unusual
>> risk for problems)
>
>Even so-called "excellent candidates" have suffered devastating
>complications due to equipment failures and unexpected healing problems,
>lasers being mis-programmed, etc. etc. etc. LASIK is always a roll of the
>dice.
It is well established that about 3% of refractive surgery patients
have unresolved problems six months postop. About 0.5% have serious
problems. Surgery is not perfect. If someone demands perfection,
they should not have elective surgery.
>>and destroy refractive surgery. It has been part
>> and parcel of SurgicalEyes since the beginning.
>
>No, I think that it's just a natural consequence of thousands of unhappy
>patients being united and having a powerful voice.
A voice too often filled with misinformation, misdirection, hyperbole,
and occasionally outright lies.
>> >You know Glenn, that there are a lot of ophthalmologists who don't like
>> >refractive surgery and don't
>> >do it, even though they could be making millions just like their
>colleagues.
>>
>> As I've said for the umpteenth time, refractive surgery is not for
>> everybody. Some surgeons know their limitations.
>
>Well, to hear some speak, monkeys could do lasik.
Please be sure to tell the refractive surgeons who volunteer to help
patients that you equate those in their industry to monkeys. I'm sure
they would appreciate the honesty of your statement.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
http://www.usaeyes.org
CP
>
> And therein lies the great tragedy. If SurgicalEyes only helped
> patients with rehabilitation, they would receive support from all
> areas, but instead of rehabilitation of patients, SurgicalEyes and Ron
> Link apparently decided that it was necessary to punish the refractive
> surgery industry. I don't think the refractive surgeons and industry
> who were dressed up to be demons by Link and the SE faithful are going
> to so quickly forget. It is great that a few noble doctors are
> willing to overlook this fact, but it would be foolish to think the
> industry is going to welcome SE or Link with open arms or open
> wallets. A few, yes, but not many and not much.
>
Glenn, an industry insider who profits from the sale of refractive
surgery, is upset that doctors guilty of malpractice should be sued.
I'm glad to see that he is no longer pretending to be a patient
advocate since that was pretty sickening.
Surgical Eyes exists because the refractive industry has ignored the
problems it created. The very fact that patients who have been pretty
much abandoned by their doctors needed to organized themselves in
order to seek medical care is a real embarassment to the industry. I
think that it is great that a few noble doctors ignore the white wall
of silence regarding people who have been harmed and are reaching out
to help them.
I do agree with Glenn that it is foolish to expect the industry to
reach out and help those with problems from refractive surgery. To do
something so noble would mean that they have to acknowledge the harm
they have done to many thousands of individuals. Profit comes before
patient care.
>
> You have GOT to be kidding. Comparing the rancor, rhetoric,
> misinformation, and anti-refractive surgery/surgeon/industry
> statements of SurgicalEyes to a hospital is lunacy. If that is Ron's
> opinion, his ego is bigger than I though. If it is your
> characterization, you really should take a serious look at your idol
> worshiping.
>
>
Again, Glenn provides proof of his pro-lasik zealotry. The comparison
of Surgical Eyes to a hospital is a fair one. The thousands of people
with lost quality of vision from refractive surgery have had to
organize themselves to share information on their complications and
possible methods of rehibilitation. This may not be a formal type of
hospital but it certainly qualifies as a hospital of caring in which
medical doctors provide information on places to go to get reliable
medical advice. But, of course, we can't expect balance from Glenn
since he is a paid marketing professional in the refractive surgery.
> >Surgical Eyes has also received donations from patients who were considering
> >or were
> >scheduled for surgery but discovered SE just in time and decided not to go
> >through with
> >the operation. They have gratefully donated in appreciation of being warned
> >in time to
> >prevent their own disasters.
>
> Yet another reason for the refractive surgery industry to dislike Link
> and SurgicalEyes. If anyone goes there and asks for legitimate
> information about refractive surgery, the SE faithful jump on him or
> her with all their boogey man gloom and doom stories to scare them
> away. Just another form of punishment, IMO. Scare away all the
> patients (even ones who have no reason to believe they are at unusual
> risk for problems) and destroy refractive surgery. It has been part
> and parcel of SurgicalEyes since the beginning.
>
>
Given the collective experience of the people who participate at
Surgical Eyes it is only expected that they desire to warn others from
taking the same risk with their vision. Let's not forget that half of
the participants at Surgical Eyes were indeed excellent candidates for
refractive surgery and no unusual risks for problems. Glenn is really
crazy if he actually expects people who have been harmed by the
product he sells to speak positiviely about it and encourage others to
purchase it.
>
> >You know Glenn, that there are a lot of ophthalmologists who don't like
> >refractive surgery and don't
> >do it, even though they could be making millions just like their colleagues.
>
> As I've said for the umpteenth time, refractive surgery is not for
> everybody. Some surgeons know their limitations.
>
Ah, yes, Glenn again resorts to insult. Any doctor who does not do
refractive surgery must have realized that he or she is not competent
enough to perform it. Let's forget all about the many ophthalmologists
who believe it is unethical to cut into healty tissue.
Once again, Glenn proves beyond a shadow of a doubt his pro-lasik
zealotry.
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
>> And therein lies the great tragedy. If SurgicalEyes only helped
>> patients with rehabilitation, they would receive support from all
>> areas, but instead of rehabilitation of patients, SurgicalEyes and Ron
>> Link apparently decided that it was necessary to punish the refractive
>> surgery industry. I don't think the refractive surgeons and industry
>> who were dressed up to be demons by Link and the SE faithful are going
>> to so quickly forget. It is great that a few noble doctors are
>> willing to overlook this fact, but it would be foolish to think the
>> industry is going to welcome SE or Link with open arms or open
>> wallets. A few, yes, but not many and not much.
>>
>
>Glenn, an industry insider who profits from the sale of refractive
>surgery,
You say these lies over and over. Do you believe they will become
truth, I will not challenge the lies, or that no one will notice they
are lies?
CRSQA is a nonprofit organization. There no profit for anyone to
receive. I do not sell refractive surgery, but through CRSQA and
these newsgroups I provide objective and substantiated information
about refractive surgery. For some that information may indicate
refractive surgery is for them. For others it may indicate the
opposite.
I have never sold refractive surgery. CRSQA does not provide
refractive surgery. It makes no difference to me if someone who uses
or services or information does or does not have refractive surgery.
I have never publicly or privately told someone to have refractive
surgery.
>is upset that doctors guilty of malpractice should be sued.
>I'm glad to see that he is no longer pretending to be a patient
>advocate since that was pretty sickening.
Read my statement CP:
"That is absolutely not to say that patients should no(t) sue and
patients should not use SurgicalEyes. Where there is evidence of
malpractice, a patient should exercise all available options for
redress."
Yet again you try to suggest that I am something that I am not, or
that I said something I did not. Yet again you are shown to be wrong.
>Surgical Eyes exists because the refractive industry has ignored the
>problems it created.
CRSQA exists because the refractive surgery industry did not provide
objective information or show patients how to select a surgeon. There
were holes that needed to be filled.
>The very fact that patients who have been pretty
>much abandoned by their doctors needed to organized themselves in
>order to seek medical care is a real embarassment to the industry.
There is no doubt the industry has plenty to be embarrassed about,
that does not, however, excuse the rancor, misinformation, hyperbole,
and rhetoric from SurgicalEyes and/or the SE faithful.
>I
>think that it is great that a few noble doctors ignore the white wall
>of silence regarding people who have been harmed and are reaching out
>to help them.
"the white wall of silence" What a bunch of bovine fertilizer.
Virtually everything the people of SurgicalEyes know about refractive
surgery came from doctors who published reports of problems and from
peer reviewed articles. SurgicalEyes didn't discover anything, they
just put their own spin on it and regurgitated it. SurgicalEyes has
created no legitimate studies, reports, or trials. SE is a middle man
and one that puts a very distinct bias on all it touches.
>I do agree with Glenn that it is foolish to expect the industry to
>reach out and help those with problems from refractive surgery.
That is not what I said at all, and you know it. What I said is that
SurgicalEyes and Ron Link should not expect the industry to believe
the new "I'm not anit-LASIK" lip service or trust them after years of
anti-refractive surgery/surgeon/industry statements and acts.
There is a big difference between helping patients and supporting
SurgicalEyes. Obviously Link would like people to believe you must
support SurgicalEyes to help patients.
>To do
>something so noble would mean that they have to acknowledge the harm
>they have done to many thousands of individuals. Profit comes before
>patient care.
Wake up CP. The reports of complications came from the industry you
are now saying denies that complications exist. This is the standard
SurgicalEyes line, and after all these years it still makes no sense
and defies all logic.
>> You have GOT to be kidding. Comparing the rancor, rhetoric,
>> misinformation, and anti-refractive surgery/surgeon/industry
>> statements of SurgicalEyes to a hospital is lunacy. If that is Ron's
>> opinion, his ego is bigger than I though. If it is your
>> characterization, you really should take a serious look at your idol
>> worshiping.
>
>Again, Glenn provides proof of his pro-lasik zealotry.
Get this clear CP. One can criticize Ron Link without criticizing
SurgicalEyes. One can criticize SurgicalEyes without criticizing the
patients it claims to represent. One can criticize anti-LASIK idiocy
without being pro-LASIK. A reasonable person can see this and can
identify the difference.
I'm not against LASIK or any other form of refractive surgery. It can
and has been beneficial for millions, but is not for everybody and has
harmed an unfortunate small percentage. I'm also not against patients
getting help. That does not mean that I agree with the BS that
SurgicalEyes dishes out.
Obviously you think anyone who does not condemn refractive surgery is
therefore a pro-LASIK zealot. Wrong. I can and do recognize that
refractive surgery is not for everybody but is beneficial for most.
That is more than you have said.
>The comparison
>of Surgical Eyes to a hospital is a fair one. The thousands of people
>with lost quality of vision from refractive surgery have had to
>organize themselves to share information on their complications and
>possible methods of rehibilitation.
A hospital is a facility where patients and practitioners meet to
share equipment and physical resources. Patients and practitioners
can exchange information at SE, but real help comes when a patient
meeting with a doctor who can diagnose and treat. A good example is
for all the information Leukoma provided at SurgicalEyes, he really
helped when patients went to see him.
As the sources for factual refractive surgery information have become
more plentiful, one need for SurgicalEyes has diminished. As
SurgicalEyes colors information with its anti-refractive
surgery/surgeon/industry politics, the demand for objective
information elsewhere has risen.
Some patients still need the community spirit and feeling of family
that exists at SE, but if they want objective information and real
help, they may find it better elsewhere.
>This may not be a formal type of
>hospital but it certainly qualifies as a hospital of caring in which
>medical doctors provide information on places to go to get reliable
>medical advice.
A place for the exchange of information (good, bad, in between) yes, a
hospital, not even close.
>But, of course, we can't expect balance from Glenn
Balance comes from objectivity and from not having a predetermined
decision about an issue. That is something I do provide.
>since he is a paid marketing professional in the refractive surgery.
I do not market refractive surgery, but through CRSQA and these
newsgroups I provide objective and substantiated information about
refractive surgery. For some that information may indicate refractive
surgery is for them. For others it may indicate the opposite. For
people with objectivity, there is not one answer to every refractive
surgery question.
>Given the collective experience of the people who participate at
>Surgical Eyes it is only expected that they desire to warn others from
>taking the same risk with their vision.
I absolutely agree, but at least be in the same ballpark. Someone who
is was an extreme myope and had RK almost a decade ago telling a
moderate hyperope not to have LASIK because he had a bad outcome isn't
even close. You, Keller, and Hanson tell everyone, no matter what
their circumstances, not to have refractive surgery. That is not
warning, that is rhetoric. I try to ascertain the relevant facts and
respond with information that can help the patient make his or her own
decision. On many ocassions the facts indicate a warning is
appropriate.
>Let's not forget that half of
>the participants at Surgical Eyes were indeed excellent candidates for
>refractive surgery and no unusual risks for problems.
Where did you come up with that one?
>Glenn is really
>crazy if he actually expects people who have been harmed by the
>product he sells to speak positiviely about it and encourage others to
>purchase it.
I do not sell refractive surgery. I have never sold refractive
surgery. CRSQA does not provide refractive surgery. It makes no
difference to me if someone who uses or services or information does
or does not have refractive surgery. I have never publicly or
privately told someone to have refractive surgery. I and CRSQA do
provide objective information about refractive surgery so people who
are interested can come to their own conclusions.
I would have thought that it is crazy to expect people from
SurgicalEyes to speak positively about RS too, but now Ron Link is
telling the refractive surgery industry he is not anti-LASIK. He has
stated that it is possible for refractive surgery to be appropriate
and even gives a list of refractive surgeons on his website to which
patients considering refractive surgery should seek care. He recruits
as the SE co-medical director the former medical director of a "LASIK
mill". Apparently it is not so crazy.
>> >You know Glenn, that there are a lot of ophthalmologists who don't like
>> >refractive surgery and don't
>> >do it, even though they could be making millions just like their colleagues.
>>
>> As I've said for the umpteenth time, refractive surgery is not for
>> everybody. Some surgeons know their limitations.
>>
>
>Ah, yes, Glenn again resorts to insult. Any doctor who does not do
>refractive surgery must have realized that he or she is not competent
>enough to perform it.
Boy did you take that wrong, but I can understand how you would do so.
Some doctors know that they cannot perform the surgery. Some doctors
are opposed to elective surgery. Some doctors are not willing to
invest in the time and money necessary to learn and supply a good
facility. There are many limitations, not just surgical ability, but
that is not what I said the first time. Apologies all around.
>Let's forget all about the many ophthalmologists
>who believe it is unethical to cut into healty tissue.
Ethics is a matter of personal choice/values. That is a self imposed
limitation. Some religions do not believe in blood transfusions. One
can respect a doctor who believes this, but I don't want my available
medical choices to be limited because of another's personal values.
There are indeed many ophthalmologists who do not believe elective
surgery should be performed on healthy tissue. That does not mean
that refractive surgery should be halted or that it is not beneficial.
>
>Once again, Glenn proves beyond a shadow of a doubt his pro-lasik
>zealotry.
And once again CP shows that he really does not care what anyone says
as long as he can try to turn it into something anti-LASIK. I'm all
for everyone making their own decision about refractive surgery based
upon substantiated objective information. I do not appreciate
zealotry on either side.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
CP
> >
> >Glenn, an industry insider who profits from the sale of refractive
> >surgery,
>
> You say these lies over and over. Do you believe they will become
> truth, I will not challenge the lies, or that no one will notice they
> are lies?
>
> CRSQA is a nonprofit organization. There no profit for anyone to
> receive. I do not sell refractive surgery, but through CRSQA and
> these newsgroups I provide objective and substantiated information
> about refractive surgery. For some that information may indicate
> refractive surgery is for them. For others it may indicate the
> opposite.
>
Glenn, anyone who looks at your website sees that refractive surgeons
pay you money to advertise their services and provide referrals for
people interested in refractive surgery. You are an integral part of
the sale and marketing team for these surgeons and CRSQA exists only
because you make these referrels. You can twist the truth all you want
but your claims of not selling refractive surgery are simply not true.
> I have never sold refractive surgery. CRSQA does not provide
> refractive surgery. It makes no difference to me if someone who uses
> or services or information does or does not have refractive surgery.
> I have never publicly or privately told someone to have refractive
> surgery.
>
Glenn, you sell refractive surgery every time you refer a patient to a
surgeon. CRSQA is nothing more than a marketing tool.
>
> >Surgical Eyes exists because the refractive industry has ignored the
> >problems it created.
>
> CRSQA exists because the refractive surgery industry did not provide
> objective information or show patients how to select a surgeon. There
> were holes that needed to be filled.
>
Wrong. CRSQA exists because refractive surgeons pay you to advertise
their services. Your organization may technically be organized as a
non-profit corporation but you earn your living by referring visitors
to your website to refractive surgeons. You are a marketing person.
Marketing is part of sales.
> >
> >The very fact that patients who have been pretty
> >much abandoned by their doctors needed to organized themselves in
> >order to seek medical care is a real embarassment to the industry.
>
> There is no doubt the industry has plenty to be embarrassed about,
> that does not, however, excuse the rancor, misinformation, hyperbole,
> and rhetoric from SurgicalEyes and/or the SE faithful.
>
The information available at Surgical Eyes provides the balance to
your continuing pro-lasik zealotry and that of your industry.
> >I
> >think that it is great that a few noble doctors ignore the white wall
> >of silence regarding people who have been harmed and are reaching out
> >to help them.
>
> "the white wall of silence" What a bunch of bovine fertilizer.
> Virtually everything the people of SurgicalEyes know about refractive
> surgery came from doctors who published reports of problems and from
> peer reviewed articles. SurgicalEyes didn't discover anything, they
> just put their own spin on it and regurgitated it. SurgicalEyes has
> created no legitimate studies, reports, or trials. SE is a middle man
> and one that puts a very distinct bias on all it touches.
>
Wrong. Surgical Eyes has united the voices of the many thousands of
patients who have been harmed and ignored by the medical community by
presenting the medical community with its own data proving that
complications do happen and happen frequently. If it were not for
Surgical Eyes the great white wall of silence would be far more
impenetrable. If it were not for Surgical Eyes many patients would not
know of the different regimes to manage dry eyes or the many possible
contact lenses that can help mask multiple images.
Your words do apply to your own organization. CRSQA is an organization
that claims to be a patient advocate yet has not created any
legitimate studies, reports or trials. It simply re-packags the claims
and hype of the refractive surgery industry with a very distinct
pro-lasik zealotry. You do this for the money you receive from the
refractive surgeons who pay you to market their services.
>
> >I do agree with Glenn that it is foolish to expect the industry to
> >reach out and help those with problems from refractive surgery.
>
> That is not what I said at all, and you know it. What I said is that
> SurgicalEyes and Ron Link should not expect the industry to believe
> the new "I'm not anit-LASIK" lip service or trust them after years of
> anti-refractive surgery/surgeon/industry statements and acts.
>
> There is a big difference between helping patients and supporting
> SurgicalEyes. Obviously Link would like people to believe you must
> support SurgicalEyes to help patients.
>
>
Another untruthful spin! It is clear that Ron Link has created an
organization for people who were not helped by the medical community.
One would think that the refractive surgery industry would be eager to
fix the people they have harmed and thank organizations like Surgical
Eyes for giving them the opportunity to redeem themselves.
> >To do
> >something so noble would mean that they have to acknowledge the harm
> >they have done to many thousands of individuals. Profit comes before
> >patient care.
>
> Wake up CP. The reports of complications came from the industry you
> are now saying denies that complications exist. This is the standard
> SurgicalEyes line, and after all these years it still makes no sense
> and defies all logic.
>
Wake up, Glenn. Just a few years ago it was almost impossible for
patients to find information about complications from refractive
surgery. They had to totally rely on the surgeon selling refractive
surgery for information. Surgical Eyes organized the many thousands of
people with complications into a powerful voice, one which the
industry could no longer pretend was simply a few people who were
"unsatisified" with the results. Surgical Eyes provides the balance to
the claims of your industry.
>
> Get this clear CP. One can criticize Ron Link without criticizing
> SurgicalEyes. One can criticize SurgicalEyes without criticizing the
> patients it claims to represent. One can criticize anti-LASIK idiocy
> without being pro-LASIK. A reasonable person can see this and can
> identify the difference.
>
I agree. It is possible but your behavior has repeatedly shown you to
be a pro-lasik zealot. Anyone reading your posts will see that you
consider the claims of refractive surgery to be true until proven
otherwise yet the claims of patients with problems are to be
questioned until proven true.
>
> Obviously you think anyone who does not condemn refractive surgery is
> therefore a pro-LASIK zealot. Wrong. I can and do recognize that
> refractive surgery is not for everybody but is beneficial for most.
> That is more than you have said.
>
Wrong. Pro-lasik zealots are only those people like you who focus
primarily on the benefits while downplaying the very real loss of
quality of life that many thousands of individuals have experienced
and may experience for the rest of their lives.
> A hospital is a facility where patients and practitioners meet to
> share equipment and physical resources. Patients and practitioners
> can exchange information at SE, but real help comes when a patient
> meeting with a doctor who can diagnose and treat. A good example is
> for all the information Leukoma provided at SurgicalEyes, he really
> helped when patients went to see him.
>
I agree. Surgical Eyes has facilitated getting patients hooked up with
doctors who can help them manage their loss of quality of vision. It
has provided a vital service to many thousands of people.
> As the sources for factual refractive surgery information have become
> more plentiful, one need for SurgicalEyes has diminished. As
> SurgicalEyes colors information with its anti-refractive
> surgery/surgeon/industry politics, the demand for objective
> information elsewhere has risen.
>
I disagree. The demand for objective information certainly has risen
as the numbers of people with complications from refractive surgery
rises. Unfortunately, there is no pro-patient organization dedicated
to providing objective information. Patients with problems can garner
information from the industry journals but they must wade through the
pro-RS hype to find anything useful. The patients and doctors who make
up Surgical Eyes can really cut through this hype. The coloring of
information by those who have been harmed is far less than the
coloring of information by those who sell.
> Some patients still need the community spirit and feeling of family
> that exists at SE, but if they want objective information and real
> help, they may find it better elsewhere.
>
There is no elsewhere. The two sites I am aware of that provide Q&A
for patients are both far more pro-lasik than Surgical Eyes is
anti-lasik. Go read the FAQs at asklasikdocs and you'll see that the
complications like irregular astigmatism only talk about how exciting
the future is (without mentioning that there is currently no way to
fix irregular astigmatism). Go and read your own bulletin board and
see how people with problems are ridiculed and how anyone stating
anything that questions the lasik miracle are attacked.
> A place for the exchange of information (good, bad, in between) yes, a
> hospital, not even close.
>
I disagree. But you have the right to be wrong about this.
> >But, of course, we can't expect balance from Glenn
>
> Balance comes from objectivity and from not having a predetermined
> decision about an issue. That is something I do provide.
>
No. It is not something that you provide. You sell refractive surgery
and author articles on how to market refractive surgery. You have a
predetermined decision on the issue. You are not balanced.
> I do not market refractive surgery, but through CRSQA and these
> newsgroups I provide objective and substantiated information about
> refractive surgery.
Sorry, Glenn, but you most certainly do market refractive surgery.
Refractive surgeons pay you to provide referrals through your website.
This is marketing and sales and you simply must stop lying about it.
> >
> >Let's not forget that half of
> >the participants at Surgical Eyes were indeed excellent candidates for
> >refractive surgery and no unusual risks for problems.
>
> Where did you come up with that one?
>
Reading the bulletin board there. Do you have objective data that
proves otherwise? If yes, please provide it.
> >Glenn is really
> >crazy if he actually expects people who have been harmed by the
> >product he sells to speak positiviely about it and encourage others to
> >purchase it.
>
> I do not sell refractive surgery. I have never sold refractive
> surgery. CRSQA does not provide refractive surgery.
Sorry, Glenn, but you most certainly do market refractive surgery.
Refractive surgeons pay you to provide referrals through your website.
This is marketing and sales and you simply must stop lying about it.
>
> I would have thought that it is crazy to expect people from
> SurgicalEyes to speak positively about RS too, but now Ron Link is
> telling the refractive surgery industry he is not anti-LASIK. He has
> stated that it is possible for refractive surgery to be appropriate
> and even gives a list of refractive surgeons on his website to which
> patients considering refractive surgery should seek care. He recruits
> as the SE co-medical director the former medical director of a "LASIK
> mill". Apparently it is not so crazy.
>
Sometimes people need to work with the industry who harmed them to
look for cures. I can respect that Ron Link might personally be
anti-rs given his experience and that of the many thousands whom he
has helped. I can also respect that he chooses that Surgical Eyes does
not have an official position on refractive surgery since it is
possible that future developments in technology may help a percentage
of people who have lost quality of vision.
I have read the the person who is co-medical director left his
position at a lasik mill because the people who ran it would not allow
him to establish a standard of care for all patients. I think that
this would be a big plus in deciding to accept his offer to help
people with problems. How many of your CRSQA surgeons donate their
time to help at Surgical Eyes?
This thread is yet another example of Glenn providing examples of his
pro-lasik zealotry.
CP
Billy
news:7519858e.0304...@posting.google.com...
>
> Glenn, anyone who looks at your website sees that refractive surgeons
> pay you money to advertise their services and provide referrals for
> people interested in refractive surgery. You are an integral part of
> the sale and marketing team for these surgeons and CRSQA exists only
> because you make these referrels. You can twist the truth all you want
> but your claims of not selling refractive surgery are simply not true.
CP, anyone that goes to "Glenn's" site will see a very balanced view of
Lasik. They discuss realistic expectations, possible complications, etc. I
have come across only a handful of balanced sites, and usaeyes.org is
certainly one of them.
You simply hate lasik and everything associated with it, which in no way
changes the value of the CRSQA site.
Billy
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
>Glenn, anyone who looks at your website sees that refractive surgeons
>pay you money to advertise their services and provide referrals for
>people interested in refractive surgery.
Not quite right, CP. CRSQA is funded by the certification fees we
collect from the doctors we have evaluated. Information about the
doctors who are currently certified is available at our website. We
absolutely hope that potential refractive surgery candidates will
consider these evaluated surgeons if they are serious about refractive
surgery. A part of our purpose is to help potential patients find the
better doctors.
>You are an integral part of
>the sale and marketing team for these surgeons
Not at all. We provide objective and factually substantiated
information that may or may not indicate a particular individual is a
good candidate for refractive surgery. I don't see providing truthful
information as selling anything. We don't provide refractive surgery.
It makes no difference to us if someone visiting our website does or
does not have surgery or if a person does or does not select a CRSQA
Certified Refractive Surgeon. In fact, we provide our 50 Tough
Questions For Your Doctor specifically so people who are not near a
CRSQA affiliated surgeon are able to evaluate and select the better
doctor.
The decision to have surgery or not is the individual's. We try to
stay out of the way of someone making his or her own decision, but we
are very guilty of trying to influence potential patients about how to
select a surgeon.
> and CRSQA exists only
>because you make these referrels.
This is partly true. Our funding comes from refractive surgeon
certification fees. We feel that these are the best people to fund
our objective information and patient services. If refractive surgery
did not exist, there would be no reason for us. Some of our certified
surgeons support us because of the good work we do. They are not
concerned if CRSQA is a referral source. There are others who I'm
sure would drop their certification if they never received a patient
due to their certification.
>You can twist the truth all you want
>but your claims of not selling refractive surgery are simply not true.
Sorry CP, but this one doesn't stick. To "sell" refractive surgery
you would think I would need to tell somebody they should have it. I
never have.
>
>> I have never sold refractive surgery. CRSQA does not provide
>> refractive surgery. It makes no difference to me if someone who uses
>> or services or information does or does not have refractive surgery.
>> I have never publicly or privately told someone to have refractive
>> surgery.
>>
>
>Glenn, you sell refractive surgery every time you refer a patient to a
>surgeon. CRSQA is nothing more than a marketing tool.
There is no doubt that some doctors use their CRSQA certification in
their marketing. We think this is a good thing. We want patients to
go to the better (or at least evaluated) surgeons, so if a doctor says
"I'm CRSQA certified." then potential patients know to at least
consider this doctor.
If the better doctors get more patients, then that also means more
patients get the better doctor. We are all for that.
How doctors use our certification is their responsibility. They must
meet our requirements no matter what.
Keep in mind CP, that the vast majority of the people who visit our
website are not able to utilize the services of a CRSQA Certified
Refractive Surgeon. They live too far away.
>>
>> Obviously you think anyone who does not condemn refractive surgery is
>> therefore a pro-LASIK zealot. Wrong. I can and do recognize that
>> refractive surgery is not for everybody but is beneficial for most.
>> That is more than you have said.
>>
>
>Wrong. Pro-lasik zealots are only those people like you who focus
>primarily on the benefits while downplaying the very real loss of
>quality of life that many thousands of individuals have experienced
>and may experience for the rest of their lives.
CP, I don't downplay the potential problems at all. Look at our FAQ
and the list of all the potential problems.
<big snip all over the place>
The rest of your diatribe is how you love SurgicalEyes, hate LASIK,
and hate CRSQA. I suggest you never visit our website, ignore all the
information there, don't use a CRSQA Certified Refractive Surgeon
(please) and I'll number you among our lessor critics.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Cindy
> >> And therein lies the great tragedy. If SurgicalEyes only helped
> >> patients with rehabilitation, they would receive support from all
> >> areas, but instead of rehabilitation of patients, SurgicalEyes and Ron
> >> Link apparently decided that it was necessary to punish the refractive
> >> surgery industry. I don't think the refractive surgeons and industry
> >> who were dressed up to be demons by Link and the SE faithful are going
> >> to so quickly forget. It is great that a few noble doctors are
> >> willing to overlook this fact, but it would be foolish to think the
> >> industry is going to welcome SE or Link with open arms or open
> >> wallets. A few, yes, but not many and not much.
I want proof, Glenn. Proof that there would have been across the
board support of SE if SE had 'only helped patients with
rehabilitation'. Everything you have said here is pure opinion and
doom and gloom rhetoric from a pro-LASIK zealot.
<snip>
> Read my statement CP:
>
> "That is absolutely not to say that patients should no(t) sue and
> patients should not use SurgicalEyes. Where there is evidence of
> malpractice, a patient should exercise all available options for
> redress."
I wondered when you would pull this carefully crafted paragraph out
and use it again as proof of what a fair and objective person you are.
Now I know. Too bad you didn't also copy and paste your whole
venomous and vicious post but that wouldn't look very good, would it?
>
> Yet again you try to suggest that I am something that I am not, or
> that I said something I did not. Yet again you are shown to be wrong.
No one could ever successfully accuse you of saying something you have
not. You never shut up. Eventually, I suspect, you will say
everything there is to say about everything at least once.
>
> >Surgical Eyes exists because the refractive industry has ignored the
> >problems it created.
>
> CRSQA exists because the refractive surgery industry did not provide
> objective information or show patients how to select a surgeon. There
> were holes that needed to be filled.
Not to mention a certain POCKET that could be filled...
>
> >The very fact that patients who have been pretty
> >much abandoned by their doctors needed to organized themselves in
> >order to seek medical care is a real embarassment to the industry.
>
> There is no doubt the industry has plenty to be embarrassed about,
> that does not, however, excuse the rancor, misinformation, hyperbole,
> and rhetoric from SurgicalEyes and/or the SE faithful.
Funny thing about SurgicalEyes...it is filled with REAL and HONEST
UNSCRIPTED PATIENT EXPERIENCES. Patients who were abandoned and who
continue to ask for QUALITY HEALTHCARE after paying for it.
>
> >I
> >think that it is great that a few noble doctors ignore the white wall
> >of silence regarding people who have been harmed and are reaching out
> >to help them.
>
> "the white wall of silence" What a bunch of bovine fertilizer.
Not really, I have experienced it first-hand. It is terribly
frustrating and upsetting.
> Virtually everything the people of SurgicalEyes know about refractive
> surgery came from doctors who published reports of problems and from
> peer reviewed articles.
Where else would it come from? None of us are doctors. Well, some of
us are... we are housewives, mothers, fathers, teachers, Phds,
musicians, secretaries, computer programmers, Peace Corps, pilots,
chemists, psychologists, engineers, executives, college
students...cripes, Glenn, we can't do everything.
>SurgicalEyes didn't discover anything, they
> just put their own spin on it and regurgitated it. SurgicalEyes has
> created no legitimate studies, reports, or trials. SE is a middle man
> and one that puts a very distinct bias on all it touches.
Well, forgive US for not setting aside time to do the LEGITIMATE
studies, reports and trials that are OBVIOUSLY needed and OBVIOUSLY
need to be done by EYE professionals! Good lord, it's hard enough
HAVING these post-rs complications and working at our chosen
professions much less being expected to provide legitimate studies,
reports and trials. SE 'discovered' and exposed a few of those holes
you mentioned...there are a lot of people with post-rs complications
that have been cut adrift to fend for themselves and cannot, with
current technology, be helped.
>
> >I do agree with Glenn that it is foolish to expect the industry to
> >reach out and help those with problems from refractive surgery.
>
> That is not what I said at all, and you know it. What I said is that
> SurgicalEyes and Ron Link should not expect the industry to believe
> the new "I'm not anit-LASIK" lip service or trust them after years of
> anti-refractive surgery/surgeon/industry statements and acts.
That is not what you said. You said:"it would be foolish to think the
industry is going to welcome SE or Link with open arms or open
wallets. A few, yes, but not many and not much." I am part of SE. I
couldn't care less if I am welcomed by the 'industry' or not. I
wasn't before I found SE, I don't expect to be now. The only time I
was welcomed by the 'industry' was when MY wallet was open and I paid
my OD and surgeon. There are plenty of doctors out there who put
patient care ahead of the 'industry'. I have met some of them and I
am currently under the care of two of them.
>
> There is a big difference between helping patients and supporting
> SurgicalEyes. Obviously Link would like people to believe you must
> support SurgicalEyes to help patients.
That's a big leap in logic and nothing more than the gloom and doom
spin of a pro-LASIK zealot.
>
>
> >To do
> >something so noble would mean that they have to acknowledge the harm
> >they have done to many thousands of individuals. Profit comes before
> >patient care.
>
> Wake up CP. The reports of complications came from the industry you
> are now saying denies that complications exist. This is the standard
> SurgicalEyes line, and after all these years it still makes no sense
> and defies all logic.
That is the supreme irony and your spin surely defies logic. There's
nothing quite like reading about your complication in an 'industry'
report that pre-dates your surgery by about 2 years when for months
your doctor has been looking at you blankly when you try to explain to
him what 'ghosting' is.
>
>
> >> You have GOT to be kidding. Comparing the rancor, rhetoric,
> >> misinformation, and anti-refractive surgery/surgeon/industry
> >> statements of SurgicalEyes to a hospital is lunacy. If that is Ron's
> >> opinion, his ego is bigger than I though. If it is your
> >> characterization, you really should take a serious look at your idol
> >> worshiping.
> >
> >Again, Glenn provides proof of his pro-lasik zealotry.
>
> Get this clear CP. One can criticize Ron Link without criticizing
> SurgicalEyes. One can criticize SurgicalEyes without criticizing the
> patients it claims to represent. One can criticize anti-LASIK idiocy
> without being pro-LASIK. A reasonable person can see this and can
> identify the difference.
One can also say that you are falling all over yourself trying to
offend without being offensive.
>
> I'm not against LASIK or any other form of refractive surgery. It can
> and has been beneficial for millions, but is not for everybody and has
> harmed an unfortunate small percentage. I'm also not against patients
> getting help. That does not mean that I agree with the BS that
> SurgicalEyes dishes out.
>
> Obviously you think anyone who does not condemn refractive surgery is
> therefore a pro-LASIK zealot. Wrong. I can and do recognize that
> refractive surgery is not for everybody but is beneficial for most.
> That is more than you have said.
'tis true. You always say more than anyone else says. It takes a
great deal of time and typing to cover all the bases and close all the
loopholes.
>
> >The comparison
> >of Surgical Eyes to a hospital is a fair one. The thousands of people
> >with lost quality of vision from refractive surgery have had to
> >organize themselves to share information on their complications and
> >possible methods of rehibilitation.
>
> A hospital is a facility where patients and practitioners meet to
> share equipment and physical resources. Patients and practitioners
> can exchange information at SE, but real help comes when a patient
> meeting with a doctor who can diagnose and treat. A good example is
> for all the information Leukoma provided at SurgicalEyes, he really
> helped when patients went to see him.
You will never know how much help Leukoma was and is without having to
see him in person. You are utterly clueless about what 'real' help
can mean to a person.
>
> As the sources for factual refractive surgery information have become
> more plentiful, one need for SurgicalEyes has diminished. As
> SurgicalEyes colors information with its anti-refractive
> surgery/surgeon/industry politics, the demand for objective
> information elsewhere has risen.
In your dreams. I hope no future patients have to go through what the
past and present members of SE have had to go through for want of
quality healthcare. We're not there yet so no need for SE has been
diminished.
>
> Some patients still need the community spirit and feeling of family
> that exists at SE, but if they want objective information and real
> help, they may find it better elsewhere.
'Some' patients 'may' find...straddling that fence has to hurt Glenn.
>
> >This may not be a formal type of
> >hospital but it certainly qualifies as a hospital of caring in which
> >medical doctors provide information on places to go to get reliable
> >medical advice.
>
> A place for the exchange of information (good, bad, in between) yes, a
> hospital, not even close.
Good, bad, in between, yes, no, maybe...sheesh
>
> >But, of course, we can't expect balance from Glenn
>
> Balance comes from objectivity and from not having a predetermined
> decision about an issue. That is something I do provide.
You're not balanced...you're on a tightrope. You're a marketer and
consultant.
>
> >since he is a paid marketing professional in the refractive surgery.
>
> I do not market refractive surgery, but through CRSQA and these
> newsgroups I provide objective and substantiated information about
> refractive surgery. For some that information may indicate refractive
> surgery is for them. For others it may indicate the opposite. For
> people with objectivity, there is not one answer to every refractive
> surgery question.
For some this, for some that...perfect answers for a marketing
professional.
>
> >Given the collective experience of the people who participate at
> >Surgical Eyes it is only expected that they desire to warn others from
> >taking the same risk with their vision.
>
> I absolutely agree, but at least be in the same ballpark. Someone who
> is was an extreme myope and had RK almost a decade ago telling a
> moderate hyperope not to have LASIK because he had a bad outcome isn't
> even close. You, Keller, and Hanson tell everyone, no matter what
> their circumstances, not to have refractive surgery. That is not
> warning, that is rhetoric. I try to ascertain the relevant facts and
> respond with information that can help the patient make his or her own
> decision. On many ocassions the facts indicate a warning is
> appropriate.
A marketing professional's dream..is it real or is it
rhetoric...whatever works.
>
> >Let's not forget that half of
> >the participants at Surgical Eyes were indeed excellent candidates for
> >refractive surgery and no unusual risks for problems.
>
> Where did you come up with that one?
Good question. From what I can tell, nearly everyone on SE was told
they were excellent candidates...the surgeons that performed their
surgeries must have given them that impression.
>
> >Glenn is really
> >crazy if he actually expects people who have been harmed by the
> >product he sells to speak positiviely about it and encourage others to
> >purchase it.
>
> I do not sell refractive surgery. I have never sold refractive
> surgery. CRSQA does not provide refractive surgery. It makes no
> difference to me if someone who uses or services or information does
> or does not have refractive surgery. I have never publicly or
> privately told someone to have refractive surgery. I and CRSQA do
> provide objective information about refractive surgery so people who
> are interested can come to their own conclusions.
>
> I would have thought that it is crazy to expect people from
> SurgicalEyes to speak positively about RS too, but now Ron Link is
> telling the refractive surgery industry he is not anti-LASIK. He has
> stated that it is possible for refractive surgery to be appropriate
> and even gives a list of refractive surgeons on his website to which
> patients considering refractive surgery should seek care. He recruits
> as the SE co-medical director the former medical director of a "LASIK
> mill". Apparently it is not so crazy.
You are interpretting and imposing your opinion. That's not
objective. Elective surgery is here to stay. Further REHABILITATIVE
refractive surgery may certainly be in the cards for some. It seems
to me that the co-medical director of SurgicalEyes is at the forefront
of important rehabilitative work for post-refractives with
complications. You seem to keep missing that important FACT.
>
> >> >You know Glenn, that there are a lot of ophthalmologists who don't like
> >> >refractive surgery and don't
> >> >do it, even though they could be making millions just like their colleagues.
> >>
> >> As I've said for the umpteenth time, refractive surgery is not for
> >> everybody. Some surgeons know their limitations.
> >>
> >
> >Ah, yes, Glenn again resorts to insult. Any doctor who does not do
> >refractive surgery must have realized that he or she is not competent
> >enough to perform it.
>
> Boy did you take that wrong, but I can understand how you would do so.
I took it the same way CP did.
>
> Some doctors know that they cannot perform the surgery. Some doctors
> are opposed to elective surgery. Some doctors are not willing to
> invest in the time and money necessary to learn and supply a good
> facility. There are many limitations, not just surgical ability, but
> that is not what I said the first time. Apologies all around.
Now THAT was amusing.
>
> >Let's forget all about the many ophthalmologists
> >who believe it is unethical to cut into healty tissue.
>
> Ethics is a matter of personal choice/values. That is a self imposed
> limitation. Some religions do not believe in blood transfusions. One
> can respect a doctor who believes this, but I don't want my available
> medical choices to be limited because of another's personal values.
>
> There are indeed many ophthalmologists who do not believe elective
> surgery should be performed on healthy tissue. That does not mean
> that refractive surgery should be halted or that it is not beneficial.
Ethics may be this, ethics may be that, some do, some don't, indeed
some do, indeed some don't, ...blahty, blahty, blah.
>
> >
> >Once again, Glenn proves beyond a shadow of a doubt his pro-lasik
> >zealotry.
>
> And once again CP shows that he really does not care what anyone says
> as long as he can try to turn it into something anti-LASIK.
I don't think so. I think CP has made a series of clear and concise
statements free of financial compensation. On the other hand, I cannot
seem to forget that you and your organization accept payment in
exchange for 'certifying' refractive surgeons.
> I'm all
> for everyone making their own decision about refractive surgery based
> upon substantiated objective information. I do not appreciate
> zealotry on either side.
I bet you are and I bet you don't. Anything else would not be good
for business.
Ragnar Suomi
and consise statements? CP is the hands-down master of distorting
people's statements.
I bet you also think the pope is jewish and that Mike Tyson is a
prophet.
You seem to have a real hard-on about Surgical Eyes.
Billy
news:981c3927.03040...@posting.google.com...
>
> I don't think so. I think CP has made a series of clear and concise
> statements free of financial compensation. On the other hand, I cannot
> seem to forget that you and your organization accept payment in
> exchange for 'certifying' refractive surgeons.
Cindy, go back and read a few weeks worth of posts, and see which of these
two people (Glenn and CP) are the most objective. See if they have both
talked about the pros and cons of lasik. See if they both have provided
objective guidance to people that asked questions.
What you will find is that one of them has talked about the pros and cons,
and provided an objective view. One (CP) has only talked about the negative
of Lasik. You may not like how Glenn is "paid," but that is really your
hang up. Look at his site, look at his post, there is no way you can say he
only presents one side of the lasik story.
Billy
Ragnar Suomi
You forgot to thank me for my recommendations of punctal plugs,
genteal gel, flaxseed oil (although I don't think flaxseed oil helps
much) and the new - RESTASIS.
The dry eye associated with refractive surgery is not a major issue.
It's a minor discomfort that lasts for a few months. It can be
eliminated with the recommendations I made.
There IS a very serious type of dry eye also - but it is not at all
related to refractive surgery, and since this is the alt.lasik-eyes
group, it would be not be appropriate to discuss that here.
On 5 Apr 2003 07:13:05 -0800, Ronal...@surgicaleyes.org (Ron Link,
Surgical Eyes) wrote:
>Lay off Cindy Glenn.
>
>She's helped a great many people with her work regarding dry eye after
>LASIK through SE.
>
>SE helps people Glenn.
>
>
Ragnar Suomi
Evil. She's a minor member of the Axis.
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
>Lay off Cindy Glenn.
>
>She's helped a great many people with her work regarding dry eye after
>LASIK through SE.
Ron, I have no doubt whatsoever that Cindy has been very, very
supportive of many of the people at SurgicalEyes (as long as they
don't say anything good about LASIK).
Her helpfulness at SurgicalEyes and elsewhere does not, however,
exempt her from criticism of her views.
This is a common ploy you engage. Because someone received an
unfortunate refractive surgery result AND that person supports you or
SurgicalEyes, the SurgicalEyes faithful defend them as if they should
be able to say or do anything.
A bad result certainly makes a negative opinion understandable, but it
does not justify some of the statements, acts, and antics of the
anti-LASIK and SurgicalEyes faithful.
>SE helps people Glenn.
Of course it has. I've said many times that SE has been a good
resource for support and information exchange. We still have a link
to SE on our website in the Bad Results section. I referred patients
to SE all the time, but now I refer them to other resources. There
are other places that are not so wrapped up in rhetoric, rancor, and a
cause that provide the similar, and sometimes better, help.
>If you can't accept the anger that co-exists there along with all of
>the good it does, that's your problem.
The anger and venom against refractive surgery that is voiced at every
opportunity from SurgicalEyes is not my problem at all. Actually,
Ron, publishing that anger on your website, promoting that anger in
the press, and defending that anger here is your problem...your
problem if you want cooperation and cash from members of the
refractive surgery industry.
You decided long ago that SurgicalEyes was not going to be just a
place where patients could find support and help, but that SE would
also be a vehicle to denounce refractive surgery and put an end to
LASIK. Okay, so that's what you do. There's nothing wrong with
SurgicalEyes being anti-LASIK, except when you try to change your
story to fit the audience. Telling an ophthalmic magazine that you
are not anti-refractive surgery/surgeon/industry and at the same time
doing all you can to make refractive surgery look bad is hypocritical
(at best).
You may say something different to the ophthalmic industry because you
want to get some cash from them, but anyone who wants to know what
your real agenda is need only look at your website, read your
diatribes, or review your quotes in the press - the non-ophthalmic
press, that is.
>You've simply gone too far with your hatred and focus on destruction.
Ron, I can only "go so far" as SurgicalEyes blunders, because all I'm
doing is pointing out the blunders. I've not made anything up. I've
not lied. I'm just stating what I have observed. How far your
blundering will be go is up to you and your faithful. My criticisms
of you and SurgicalEyes are legitimate, whether you can accept them or
not.
Cindy
I wrote:
> > I hope no future patients have to go through what the
> >past and present members of SE have had to go through for want of
> >quality healthcare.
>
> Amen to that. We try to prevent situations like those some of the
> people at SE have experienced before they happen. Even then, surgery
> is not perfect and an unfortunate few are going to have long-term
> problems.
>
<snip>
The above two statements are, for me, the whole thing in a nutshell
and as close as you and I will ever get to agreeing on what motivates
the other. Like politics and religion, the topic of refractive
surgery virtually guarantees controversy because everyone brings their
own experience to the table. My experience has been one I hope won't
be repeated but, realistically, I know it will. My statement above is
as objective as I can get on this topic. No more ruffled
feathers...to each his own.
Cindy
punkycat
> Cindy, you thnk Glenn is a pro-lasik zealot and that CP puts out clear
> and consise statements? CP is the hands-down master of distorting
> people's statements.
>
> I bet you also think the pope is jewish and that Mike Tyson is a
> prophet.
>
> You seem to have a real hard-on about Surgical Eyes.
>
>
At the risk of receiving a blistering attack from you, I need to ask
you the following question; What exactly is your agenda? You say that
you may need an enhancement, so your experience with Lasik has not
been entirely ideal. I can understand the need to question some of the
allegations from Sandy, etc, but why the venom? I can read both sides
of the argument without getting as angry and worked up as you do. Are
you connected to the industry in some way? I did ask on another
occasion whether you were a medical/optical rep, but didn't receive a
reply. If you are still considering whether or not to have an
enhancement, my experience was very positive, although I found the
relifting of the flap a bit uncomfortable.
>
> >>
Ragnar Suomi
might not require that enhancement after all. Due to the severe
astigmatism and high myopia I had in my right eye, I was told the odds
of a enhancement in that eye were about 25%. I may have been wrong!
That eye is dong much better.
I'm not being venomous, I'm simply pointing out what people like Brent
and Sandy are. I think the worst I ever did was call Sandy a bitch
and Brent an idiot. I can't think of more apropos words to describe
them. I sometimes call them terrorists which is also apropos.
On 5 Apr 2003 13:23:20 -0800, punkyc...@yahoo.com.au (punkycat)
wrote:
Billy
Billy
"Ragnar Suomi" <ragna...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:qoju8vkuc62pkbjmp...@4ax.com...
Ragnar Suomi
It's been over 2 months now. Since I was wearing RGP lenses 24/7
before the surgery, my corneas changed shape for a few weeks before
surgery while I had the lenses out. I don't even know what the exact
stable numbers wound up being, but the prescription was about -7.5
with severe astigmatism.
Your LASIK was not a typical lasik since it was for hyperopia.
Ragnar Suomi
Glenn cut and pasted the text from that article and you said it was
twisted. How is that possible?
On 5 Apr 2003 14:48:08 -0800, Ronal...@surgicaleyes.org (Ron Link,
Surgical Eyes) wrote:
>Glenn,
>
>You spin. That's what you do. You take truth and you spin it.
>
>You have to paint SE as anti-refractive surgery in order to try to
>harm it.
>
>That's your modus operandi. That's your whole game.
>
>You have targeted us. You have gone out of your way to harm SE. You
>want people to remain silent and not be upset? You want them not to
>talk to the media? The fact that SE has credibility by virtue of the
>fact that it works with doctors and patients seems to drive you to
>absolute distraction.
>
>You have to make SE the enemy. It's not going to work.
>
>Do you know how many doctors are horrified at your antics? Do you?
>
>You're unbelievable.
>
>Simply utterly unbelievable.
Billy
> That's a good question..
> It's been over 2 months now. Since I was wearing RGP lenses 24/7
> before the surgery, my corneas changed shape for a few weeks before
> surgery while I had the lenses out. I don't even know what the exact
> stable numbers wound up being, but the prescription was about -7.5
> with severe astigmatism.
I was wondering what your astigmatism was, since you termed it severe.
> Your LASIK was not a typical lasik since it was for hyperopia.
There it is again. Those of us with hyperopia are second class citizens.
:(
Billy
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
>You spin. That's what you do. You take truth and you spin it.
Blah, blah. Instead of useless accusations, try taking a statement I
have made and show that it is false. You have attempted and failed in
the past, but we have an entire website that you can look at and pick
apart, if you think you can. If you find something inaccurate, I'll
gladly correct my mistake.
Poor Ron. You can't handle the message, so you attack the messenger.
It is what you've done for years, rather than just dealing with the
message. You've screwed up left and right, Ron. I've pointed it out.
You don't like dealing with the consequences of your actions, so you
attack the person who pointed out that you have screwed up left and
right.
>You have to paint SE as anti-refractive surgery in order to try to
>harm it.
Ron, you are the one who has controlled SurgicalEyes and made it
anti-refractive surgery. Nobody else. You are the one who just a few
hours ago said you were proud of your bulletin board, where tons of
anti-refractive surgery rhetoric is published. I have not made
SurgicalEyes anti-refractive surgery/surgeon/industry, you did it Ron.
You and your minions. You and (some of) the SurgicalEyes faithful.
Don't blame me for the results of your acts.
I don't care one way or the other if the truth that I have revealed
here and elsewhere hurts SurgicalEyes or not. It makes absolutely no
difference to me, now that there are more alternatives for patients to
receive similar information and services.
>That's your modus operandi. That's your whole game.
My whole game? How childish.
>You have targeted us. You have gone out of your way to harm SE. You
>want people to remain silent and not be upset?
There you go again, attempting to make it appear I have said something
I have not. I have never said people who have been harmed by
refractive surgery should remain silent or not be upset. Ron, we have
a Report A Bad Doctor section on our website where people are
ENCOURAGED to voice their problem.
What I have said is that when you demonize an industry, don't be
surprised or indignant when they don't want to have anything to do
with you.
>You want them not to
>talk to the media?
Again, you attempt to make it appear that I have said something I have
not. I have never said people with refractive surgery problems should
not go to the media.
What I have said is that when you use the press to spread your anti
refractive surgery/surgeon/industry message, don't be surprised or
indignant when the industry rejects your ploys to say you are now not
anti-LASIK.
Ron, there are consequences to your actions. You don't want to be
responsible for your actions and accept the consequences. You want it
both ways. You want it all ways. Don't be too surprised if there
aren't many people who don't agree with you.
>The fact that SE has credibility by virtue of the
>fact that it works with doctors and patients seems to drive you to
>absolute distraction.
Ron, you really think way too much of SurgicalEyes and its importance
in my professional and personal life. I equate SurgicalEyes to a ant
on the ass of a cow I pass by going 50 in my sports car. You are a
fly speck in my routine, but you have taken up a lot of my time lately
with your antics.
>You have to make SE the enemy. It's not going to work.
The enemy of whom? Not me. Not CRSQA. You have earned your enemies
all by yourself. All the credit is yours and yours alone.
SurgicalEyes is not my enemy. Do you think SurgicalEyes possesses or
does that would make it my enemy? You are sadly deluded..
>Do you know how many doctors are horrified at your antics? Do you?
Horrified because I have pointed out your hypocrisy and
misinformation? Not many, if any at all. Horrified because you have
changed the characterization of what I have said? Well, I'm sure you
can manipulate most anyone one...for a while. I'm not concerned about
what I have said about SurgicalEyes. What you have said I have said
is undoubtedly a whole different kettle of fish.
>You're unbelievable.
>
>Simply utterly unbelievable.
Ron, perhaps instead of trying to decide if I am or am not believable,
you should try getting your own story straight so what you say and do
is believable.
Sandy
The problem with your "Report a Bad Doc" section is that you, Glenn,
are the only beneficiary of any information reported. If my doc were
willing to pay your fee, I'm sure he'd be a crqsa surgeon too, as long
as he could find 125 patients he hasn't harmed. I know of someone
who contacted you a while back and you had nothing negative to say
about him, yet he's known among the local techs as "The Butcher".
Ragnar Suomi
of that right) yet she recently WENT to a CRSQA surgeon - Dr. Maloney
of Beverly Hills!!!! The SAME Dr. Maloney that Brent has been
attacking for weeks!! Dr. Maloney provided the she-devil with
excellent care for her eyes. It it were me, I would have helped her
and myself out by merely putting a bag over her head.>
Brent Hanson
regarding Surgical Eyes:
"Ron, you really think way too much of SurgicalEyes and its importance in my
professional and personal life. I equate SurgicalEyes to a ant on the ass
of a cow I pass by going 50 in my sports car."
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=ant+on+the+ass++group:alt.lasik-eyes&hl=en
&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=14pu8v8647tvihtuefkakue2l2qtcl4nuk%404ax.com&rnu
m=1
I would like to warn all motorists who follow Glenn Hagele in traffic, to be
prepared for sudden stops. In the event that Glenn spots a cow, he is
likely to slam on his brakes, jump out of his car, and start beating the
backside of the cow.
Glenn Hagele wears glasses and drives a car with a California license plate
number "AXS 637".
Billy
news:eb3ba8117e4630da...@news.teranews.com...
>
> Glenn Hagele wears glasses and drives a car with a California license
plate
> number "AXS 637".
You are a rather rude individual. That being a well known fact, lets put it
aside for a moment. Why is it necessary to constantly post personal
information about Glenn and his family?
Billy
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
>The problem with your "Report a Bad Doc" section is that you, Glenn,
>are the only beneficiary of any information reported.
Anyone who relies on CRSQA certification for selection of a doctor
would benefit. We use the information we receive from patients to
determine if a doctor should become certified or should remain
certified. We also provide through out Selected Links the contact
information for a patient to file a complaint with appropriate local
authorities.
>If my doc were
>willing to pay your fee, I'm sure he'd be a crqsa surgeon too, as long
>as he could find 125 patients he hasn't harmed.
Sandy, any doctor who meets or exceeds our standards may become
certified. For all the trouble you had, and for all the names you
call your doctor, the simple fact is that you are an anomaly and I'm
sure (although I cannot prove it) that your doctor has many very
satisfied patients. Whether or not he would pass our muster, I have
no idea. He has not applied to become certified.
>I know of someone
>who contacted you a while back and you had nothing negative to say
>about him, yet he's known among the local techs as "The Butcher".
You can ask your "know of someone" if I had anything good to say about
your doctor. I'm very non-commital about doctors who we have not
evaluated. I'm sure I would have told your "know of someone" to use
one of our certified surgeons or to use our 50 Tough Questions For
Your Doctor to evaluate an uncertified surgeon.
Brent Hanson
helps patients who are abandoned:
"Okay Cindy, let's all admit that a lot of refractive surgeons screwed up
and "abandoned" patients. Not that they exhausted all that they could do
for their patients. Not that they desire to help but really can't. No,
let's say that a lot of patients were abandoned... That was then, this is
now... If you think you know someone who is 'abandoned', send him or her to
our Second Response Team. I'll get a doctor to help."
Dr. David Eldridge is on the CR$QA board of directors, and was Vice
President of TLC Clinical Affairs when I was a patient at TLC. Dr. David
Eldridge went out of his way to refuse to help me after I had been damaged
by TLC. I ended up having to get a cornea transplant from a non-CR$QA
surgeon in Dallas, due to Dr. David Eldridge's refusal to help me. While
this was all going on, Glenn Hagele publicly defended Dr. David Eldridge's
refusal to help me. You can read more about my case and Dr. David
Eldridge's refusal to help at the following web site:
www.lasikcourt.com/tlc/brenthanson
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
>the list in the mail.
List of what?
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
medical care.
Brent Hanson
"Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance"
<glenn....@usaeyes.org> wrote in message
news:ogt09vo0eho0qt5s6...@4ax.com...
Brent Hanson
Billy
there a reason for this rude violation of netiquette?
Billy
"Brent Hanson" <admini...@lasikcourt.com> wrote in message
news:29a4a131.03040...@posting.google.com...
Ragnar Suomi
"Ron - The Weakest - Link"?
Is it O.K. for Ron to be a sole employee and nobody else?
Ragnar Suomi
would have you arrested for trespassing. Then I would have you Baker
acted to a mental hospital.
Ragnar Suomi
server passed that information on to him do you? Brent is obsessed
with you Glenn. Brent and Ron seem to have a Fatal Attraction for
you. I hope you don't walk around the house in the nude. They will
be out there taking pictures and posting them on their websites.
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
wrote:
>Hanson has your tag number... you don't really think his process
>server passed that information on to him do you?
Yes, I know it was the process server, but he has the information
wrong so it's not much of an issue.
>Brent is obsessed
>with you Glenn. Brent and Ron seem to have a Fatal Attraction for
>you. I hope you don't walk around the house in the nude. They will
>be out there taking pictures and posting them on their websites.
That is a frightening thought...for the viewers! 8^)
Glenn Hagele - Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
As I understand it, you were never a patient of Dr. Eldridge.
Furthermore, any non-emergency room doctor has the right to refuse to
take a new patient.