"Brent Hanson - USAEyes.us" <do_not_contact[at]anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:bcidnflC7qFfk0_VnZ2dnUVZ_uSdnZ2d[at]comcast.

A handful of people who had a bad Lasik outcome have decided to direct
their ire toward me. Their attacks include lying about my financial
history, insulting my wife, publishing my personal identity including
Social Security number, bank account numbers, credit card numbers on
their bulletin boards, defamation, trademark infringement, listing
doctors we have not certified as recommended, harassing those who fund
and govern our nonprofit organization, and often doing this while
hiding behind false identities and multiple aliases.

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

The outrageous accusations, manipulations, half-truths, outright lies,
false complaints, and attacks on me and others by these anti-Lasik
zealots have caused them some serious trouble.

One recently had the FBI show up at his door investigating an alleged
extortion attempt against his former surgeon and had previously been
charged with felony use of false identity and resisting arrest.

Another is being sued in North Carolina Superior Court for publicizing
my personal identity including Social Security number on her website.
Her employer is investigating how her access to federal secure
computer systems was used to publish defamation on the Internet, and
she uses so many aliases it is hard to keep up.

And one 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, is in bankruptcy, and I'm personally suing him for
defamation and invasion of privacy in California Superior Court where
another restraining order has been issued against him.

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

Brent Hanson
http://tinyurl.com/yrjayg

Lauranell "Nell" Burch
http://tinyurl.com/2y74l7

Dean Andrew Kantis
http://tinyurl.com/2zf3qa

Or visit my personal website:

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

Lauranell "Nell" Burch
http://www.GlennHagele.com/LauranellBurch/

Dean Kantis
http://www.GlennHagele.com/DeanAndrewKantis/

USAEyes is a trademark of the Council for Refractive Surgery Quality
Assurance (http://www.USAEyes.org). The use of usaeyes.INFO,
usaeyes.BIZ, usaeyes.NET, usaeyes.US, and other use of USAEyes by
Brent Hanson is not approved by Council for Refractive Surgery Quality
Assurance. Arbitration under the authority of the Internet Corporation
of Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) found Brent Hanson's use of the
USAEyes trademark inappropriate and ordered the domains usaeyes.INFO,
usaeyes.BIZ, usaeyes.NET transferred to the Council for Refractive
Surgery Quality Assurance.

See http://www.usaeyes.INFO

For those who would like to form their own opinion about the work I do
and the organization I founded, visit our website and/or our Lasik
Patient Forum listed below my signature.

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/

I am not a doctor.

Copyright 2008
All Rights Reserved

Learn how the Sacramento District Attorney directed the Bureau of Family
Support to place liens on all property owned by Glenn Hagele, for his
refusal to pay court-ordered child support.

View Adobe PDF document from
http://www.lasikmarketing.biz/crsqa/...-vs-hagele.pdf

For more information regarding Glenn Hagele, visit the following sites:

www.lasikpimp.com
www.usaeyes.us
www.theglennhagelereport.com

=========================================

CRSQA (Council for Refractive Quality Assurance) is a referral service for
LASIK surgeons, operated by Glenn Hagele out of his home. Despite its
pretentious name, CRSQA is just a cynical marketing ploy that "certifies"
refractive surgeons willing to fork over $7,000 in the first year and
$5,000/year thereafter. In exchange, Glenn Hagele provides these surgeons
with a bogus seal of approval on his USAEYES.org web site to promote their
practices. Don't be fooled by Glenn Hagele's advertising claims - CRSQA's
quality "standards" are actually below industry standards. Glenn Hagele is
not qualified to issue certifications as he is not a doctor, but simply a
high school graduate with a single college course in marketing.

Out of 17,000 ophthalmologists in the US, about 30-50 pay Glenn Hagele to
market their practices. It is somewhat difficult to tell exactly what
ophthalmologists are members of CRSQA at any one time, as Glenn Hagele has
designed his web site in such a manner to implicitly suggest that 17,000
ophthalmologists are members.

=========================================

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.