On Apr 8, 3:39 am, "doctor_my_...[at]msn.com" <doctor_my_...[at]msn.comwrote:
- quote -

"Sandy" <sandykeller01[at]aol.com> wrote in message
news:1176704245.923148.144830[at]b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
- quote -

On Apr 8, 3:39 am, "doctor_my_...[at]msn.com" <doctor_my_...[at]msn.comwrote:
- quote -

On Apr 9, 2:31 am, "LASIK Nightmare" <badla...[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
- quote -


Oh yeah, the same couple of stories over and over again. Groundhog
day must be special to you.

On Apr 9, 2:31 am, "LASIK Nightmare" <badla...[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
- quote -

Imagine that,somebody in the lasik industry talking about deception.
LMAO

On Apr 8, 12:47?pm, "serebel" <sere...[at]aol.com> wrote:
- quote -

It's being posted as RELEVANT.

When that older literature is posted here and elsewhere as "current",
it's still deceptive.

I think that Raj did a great job writing that disclaimer, as there
have been nearly 10 years passing since his LASIK. His words have
certainly been amplified by the people who have had bad surgical
results who find solace in listening to the elegant description of
their problems that they thought were unique to themselves.

In an earlier thread, Scott made notice of the fact that many of
the journal articles that are cited here are "old" because they are
dated from 3 to 5 years ago. I do not agree that the fact that an
article is "old" when cited from the literature makes it less
important. As a matter of fact, I think that the opposite is true.
As I have been published a half dozen times, I am aware of the fact
that the process of being reviewed for publication is long and
arduous, with lengthy requests for re-writes and clarifications. By
the time clinical data is published in a journal, it is already at
least a year old. When it comes to a medical procedure, like LASIK,
that is heavily litigated in the courts...the older the reference, the
stronger that it is.
No one is going to win a liability or malpractice case based on an
argument that "we just found out about this last week." But, when a
procedure has accumulated an abundance of literature that is warning
physicians that this procedure is harming his patients, and the
literature is 6 or 7 years old and never refuted or removed from the
archives...we have a smoking gun.

On Apr 8, 12:51 pm, "Scott" <moe_gr...[at]hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
- quote -

while no doubt a very interesting read... at the end of the day it comes down to
one mans opinion...
"Because the contents of this presentation are not based upon empirical
research, they should be viewed not as fact, but as provisional hypotheses to be
sustained, or not, by the scientific method. As such, these contents are subject
to revision, amplification, or even retraction."

<doctor_my_eye[at]msn.com> wrote in message
news:1176028752.166663.242270[at]y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
- quote -

Many of the medical journal articles posted here are about the bad
flaps or infections that have occurred after LASIK surgery. I
recently had a long discussion with a board certified disability
analyst, who explained to me that disability hearings are increasingly
going in the favor of refractive surgery failure victims.

Not enough credit can be given to the seminal work in the field of
PTSD and refractive surgery done by Roger Davis, Phd nearly 10 years
ago. I recommend that ANY patient who is considering refractive
surgery of ANY kind should take a few minutes to look at Davis' work.

http://www.doctormyeye.com/bulletinboard/RSSS.php