> Not
> everyone is knowledgeable enough to know the facts from the
> fertilizer.
> Glenn Hagele
> Executive Director
> Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
> Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
> http://www.USAEyes.org
> http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
> I am not a doctor.

> Whatever wordsmithing you may put on it, my view is and will remain
> unchanged. Posts stand on their own merits. I don't care if the man on
> the moon says it or posts it, I'll look at its content.

> > In my personal opinion, individual posts ought to stand on their own
> > merit. After all, that is precisely how the casual reader will take
> > them.
> It is precisely because the casual reader would not benefit from
> knowledge of past activities that I made my original point. The
> casual reader would not necessarily know about Keller's past
> shenanigans, and may benefit from understanding the legitimacy (or
> lack thereof) of the participant.
> Glenn Hagele
> Executive Director
> Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
> Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
> http://www.USAEyes.org
> http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
> I am not a doctor.

> In my personal opinion, individual posts ought to stand on their own
> merit. After all, that is precisely how the casual reader will take
> them.

> rebeccaNO_SPAM[at]lasermyeye.org (Rebecca) wrote in message news:<120ffab4.0406091535.1e16b05c[at]posting.google.com> ...
> > Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM[at]USAEyes.org> wrote in message news:<sgaec0pb8l2df5umk751n16e99v430ki6i[at]4ax.com> ...
> > > Isn't it interesting that when this same doctor published a study with
> > > which Keller did not agree (pupil size and LASIK), Keller vilified him
> > > and claimed everything from poor study protocol to he didn't know what
> > > he was talking about. Now that he provides a study that Keller likes,
> > > she republishes it here. Hypocrisy knows no boundaries.
> > > Glenn,
> > > Excuse me, but it is rather absurd to suggest that agreeing with or
> > having respect for some, but not all, of a person's research,
> > constitutes hypocrisy. There are very few people I know and/or respect
> > who would seriously think a study has, or does not have, merit
> > exclusively on the basis of who wrote it. No medical professional
> > could justify such a position. And medical professionals have no
> > monopoly on the right to exercise critical judgment of others work,
> > last I checked.
> > > Schallhorn's work is highly relevant to the discussion of refractive
> > surgery safety because it (and he, for that matter) is being widely
> > used by defense attorneys.
> > > Rebecca Petris
> > www.lasermyeye.org
> Rebecca, under normal circumstances your post would be right on the
> money and Glenn probably wouldn't have said what he did, but when
> Sandyspam is involved, he is absolutely correct.
> SErebel

> Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM[at]USAEyes.org> wrote in message news:<sgaec0pb8l2df5umk751n16e99v430ki6i[at]4ax.com> ...
> > Isn't it interesting that when this same doctor published a study with
> > which Keller did not agree (pupil size and LASIK), Keller vilified him
> > and claimed everything from poor study protocol to he didn't know what
> > he was talking about. Now that he provides a study that Keller likes,
> > she republishes it here. Hypocrisy knows no boundaries.
> Glenn,
> Excuse me, but it is rather absurd to suggest that agreeing with or
> having respect for some, but not all, of a person's research,
> constitutes hypocrisy. There are very few people I know and/or respect
> who would seriously think a study has, or does not have, merit
> exclusively on the basis of who wrote it. No medical professional
> could justify such a position. And medical professionals have no
> monopoly on the right to exercise critical judgment of others work,
> last I checked.
> Schallhorn's work is highly relevant to the discussion of refractive
> surgery safety because it (and he, for that matter) is being widely
> used by defense attorneys.
> Rebecca Petris
> www.lasermyeye.org

> A doc told me recently there was a pupil study with a large n
> presented at a conference, but didn't name the author. Anyone heard
> of one with a large n?

> Isn't it interesting that when this same doctor published a study with
> which Keller did not agree (pupil size and LASIK), Keller vilified him
> and claimed everything from poor study protocol to he didn't know what
> he was talking about. Now that he provides a study that Keller likes,
> she republishes it here. Hypocrisy knows no boundaries.
> Glenn Hagele
> Executive Director
> Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
> Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
> http://www.USAEyes.org
> http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
> I am not a doctor.