"Glenn Hagele - USAEyes.org" <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM[at]USAEyes.orgwrote in message
news:d9j9r49muiqvnpn6p7p3rcdjq1co5aihs6[at]4ax.comRights Reserved

USAEyes is a trademark of the Council for Refractive Surgery Quality
Assurance (http://www.USAEyes.org). The use of the USAEyes mark by
Brent Hanson, of Washington state, is not approved by Council for
Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance. Administrative arbitration under
the authority of the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and
Numbers (ICANN) Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP)
found Brent Hanson's use of the USAEyes trademark inappropriate and
ordered the domains usaeyes.INFO, usaeyes.BIZ, usaeyes.NET, and
usaeyes.US transferred to the Council for Refractive Surgery Quality
Assurance.

http://www.usaeyes.INFO
http://www.usaeyes.US

The outrageous accusations, manipulations, half-truths, outright lies,
false complaints, and attacks on me and others by Brent Hanson has
caused him some serious trouble.

Brent Hanson has a permanent restraining order against him for
threatening Dallas Lasik doctor William Boothe, MD with physical
violence, has been sued for defamation, lost, found in contempt of
court and sentenced to jail, has not surrendered to the Texas court to
serve his time, recently filed for bankruptcy, is being sued by
USAEyes for damages related to his malfeasance with the USAEyes mark,
and I'm personally suing him for defamation and invasion of privacy in
California Superior Court where yet another restraining order has been
issued against him to halt him from publishing my private information,
including Social Security number, on the Internet. Yes, he had to have
a restraining order to stop publishing someone's Social Security
number.

Rather than copy and pasting the details again and again, just Google:

Brent Hanson
http://tinyurl.com/yrjayg

Or visit my personal website:

Brent Hanson
http://www.GlennHagele.com/BrentHanson/

Or visit the California Superior Court docket and look up case number
06AS00839

https://services.saccourt.com/public...efaultDMS.aspx

Considering the work I do to advocate for Lasik patients and the
nonprofit patient advocacy I founded, his acts seem to have no logic
or reason. Even stranger is the fact that Mr. Hanson had his surgery
before our organization existed and did not use doctors certified by
our organization...but you can't use logic and reason on illogical and
unreasonable people.

For those who would like to form their own opinion about the work I do
and the organization I founded, visit our Lasik patient advocacy
website at http://www.USAEyes.org and/or our Lasik Patient Forum
http://www.USAEyes.org/Ask-Lasik-Expert/


Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes (R)
Patient Advocacy Surgeon Certification

"Consider and Choose With Confidence" (TM)

Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org

http://www.USAEyes.org

Lasik Bulletin Board
http://www.USAEyes.org/Ask-Lasik-Expert/

Mr. Hagele is not a doctor.

This transmission is on behalf of the Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance(TM) and is not endorsed, submitted, or representative of any other organization or entity. Copyright Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance(TM). All rights reserved.
All Rights Reserved

"Brent Hanson - USAEYES-FRAUD.com" <do_not_contact[at]anywhere.comwrote in message news:x02tl.104501$TK1.8495[at]newsfe16.certification, it is evident that the efficacy requirements
actually fall
- quote -

http://www.usaeyes-fraud.com/reports...y-usaeyes.html

http://tinyurl.com/crcctm

False Advertising Claims by USAEYES
Claim #1
"USAEyes.org Certified Lasik Doctor Candidates - There are
approximately 17,000 ophthalmologists in the US. Additionally, there are
approximately 480 optometrists in states that allow optometrists to perform
some types of refractive surgery."

Source: www.usaeyes.org/lasik/faq/about.htm

Fact
The statement implies that USAEYES has many thousands of members.
However, there are in fact about 30+ surgeons who are members of USAEYES.
The USAEYES.org web site is designed to obfuscate this fact, but if you
click through every link on the site you can only find about 30-50 surgeons.

Claim #2
"It is the purpose of CRSQA to help patients identify the better
refractive surgeons. There is no better way to accomplish this than for
CRSQA Certified Lasik Surgeons to display the Quality Verified logo and
announce that they have been evaluated by an independent patient/consumer
organization and achieved its approval. Use of the Quality Verified logo is
encouraged in all advertisements, brochures, and presentations."

Source: www.usaeyes.org/faq/certification_request.htm

"You can be confident that a USAEyes.org Certified Lasik Doctor
is one of the best refractive surgeons available."

Source: www.usaeyes.org/faq/subjects/certified.htm

Fact
a.. USAEYES certification standards are below the standard of
care as evidenced by published FDA clinical trials. Therefore, no evidence
exists that USAEYES surgeons are better than non-certified surgeons.

Upon careful examination of the requirements for
certification, it is evident that the efficacy requirements actually fall
far below today's standards and results achieved in FDA clinical trials
completed in 2002 and 2003. Here is an example of surgical outcomes
requirements from the USAEYES.org website:
"Not less than 90% of applicant's refractive surgery
patients must achieve Snellen 20/40 Uncorrected Visual Acuity (UCVA) or
better in each surgical eye. Not less than 50% of applicant's refractive
surgery patients must achieve Snellen 20/20 UCVA or better in each surgical
eye."

Source:
http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/subjects/...quirements.htm

In comparison, at 6 months post-op, 99.4% of eyes enrolled in
the Bausch & Lomb Zyoptix clinical trials achieved UCVA of 20/40 or better
and 91.5% achieved UCVA of 20/20 or better.

Source: www.fda.gov/cdrh/pdf/P990027S006b.pdf

Similarly, six month post-operative UCVA data from the VISX
STAR S4 WaveFront System shows that 99.6% of eyes achieved 20/40 or better
and 93.9% achieved 20/20 or better.

Source: www.fda.gov/cdrh/pdf/P930016s016b.pdf

The Alcon LADARVision 4000 wavefront-guided LASIK trials
resulted in 98.6% of eyes with UCVA of 20/40 or better and 79.9% with 20/20
or better.

Source: www.fda.gov/cdrh/pdf/P970043S010b.pdf

These lasers represent the vast majority of lasers in use for
refractive surgery in the United States today. USAEYES' UCVA standards for
certification are similar to outcomes seen with obsolete, first-generation
laser technology from the late 1990s. Clearly the surgical outcome
requirements are not superior, yet USAEYES issues a meritless
"certification" to a surgeon who pays a fee for use of the logo, which is
then used by the surgeon in the advertisement and promotion of LASIK
surgery. This misleads patients into believing they are choosing one of the
best when in reality the certification is nothing more than a gimmick for
the promotion and marketing of LASIK.

b.. Lack of adequate sampling to sustain claims

USAEYES requires data from 125 patients for initial
certification and again every other fiscal year for re-certification. This
represents a very small percentage of patients in a busy refractive surgery
practice. The audit procedures state that a surgeon;
"may be requested to provide patient chart information when
requested, not more than ten charts per fiscal year, and onsite audits are
normally performed every 18 months, however may be performed more or less
often at CRSQA's discretion."

Source:
http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/certification_request.htm

These certification and audit procedures are too limited to
represent the overall outcomes of even a small practice, and the standards
are too loose to ensure that surgeons have demonstrated superior outcomes.

c.. USAEYES makes claims made in the absence of consensual,
scientific standards.

Regarding complications and adverse events, the organization
states the following requirements for certification:
"Not more than 3% of applicant's monitored refractive surgery
patients may report debilitating refractive surgery complications such as
glare, haze, halo, etc."

Source:
http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/certification_request.htm

These terms are vague and there is no consensus among
refractive surgeons as to their meaning. It is known that reduced visual
quality in dim light (starbursts, halos) occurs frequently after LASIK. The
term "glare" is misused. Prior to laser eye surgery a prospective patient
understands the word "glare" to mean "an intense, blinding light".
Post-LASIK "glare" is not actually glare - it is a degraded retinal image
induced by the laser treatment where the peripheral cornea refracts light
differently than the central cornea. The word "debilitating" is also not
defined and there is no distinction between a complication that is
debilitating and one that is not. Until the industry can agree upon
standardized terms and objective tests to quantify loss of visual quality
and complications, USAEYES cannot demonstrate consistency with recording and
reporting of these complications. Therefore, to state that a USAEYES
certified surgeon's complication rate is 3% or less is misleading and
unsubstantiated.

4.. USAEYES uses inadequate sampling methods to substantiate
it's claims

Claims aimed at patients, such as "patient satisfaction
surveys are evaluated every fiscal quarter" are internally inconsistent with
other statements on the web site aimed at recruiting doctors such as, "we do
not contact the patients directly" and "after initial certification, each
quarter CRSQA will evaluate any patient complaints or patient satisfaction
surveys as an indication if additional investigation is warranted."

Source:
http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/subjects/certified.htm and
http://www.usaeyes.org/faq/certification_request.htm

The statement aimed at patients is deliberately misleading as
there are apparently no tight controls or procedures to ensure the gathering
and submission of satisfaction surveys. Essentially it appears the doctors
are monitoring themselves.