acemanvx[at]yahoo.com wrote:
- quote -

The signal-to-noise ratio of s.m.v. would be greatly enhanced if you
never posted here again, Ace.

You're an ill-informed (worse than uninformed) idiot with a penchant
for hallucinogenics and too much time on your hands.

by the way, if you read what he said below, the risks become clear.


It's an invasive procedure and its widely touted focusing function is
essentially non-existent.

Definitely not a good lens for anyone, especially not for kids.


Maybe some day...

I am not telling anyone to do anything, just reminding them IOLs is
serious surgury with real risks. If you read my previous thread, I
mentioned thinking about all possible options, including waiting till
she gets older. It sounds like something is being rushed when the
source isnt well known. How do we know IOLs will be the solution? Do we
know why she sees 20/60 with or without glasses? If IOLs are
considered, are the benefits worth the risks? I understand this is a
concerned parent, but some of you are rushing this parent into letting
the child be operated.

acemanvx[at]yahoo.com wrote:
- quote -

For someone who likes to get all warm and fuzzy with post-LASIKs with
complications and sound like someone concerned with the visual problems
of others, you are awfully rude and uncaring to this concerned parent
who's trying to figure out what's best for the child. What do you know
about the child's condition other than what you've read here or
elsewhere on the internet? What are your qualifications to make such
disparaging remarks to a parent? I think this one deserves a huge
apology.

acemanvx[at]yahoo.com wrote:
- quote -

Ace,

As usual, you open your mouth without the benefit of a brain backing
you up.

What we have here is a very concerned parent trying to do what's best
for his/her child.

Please don't feel compelled--just because Otis hasn't yet--to add your
two cents to every single post. You have no idea what you're talking
about.

Very young children have significant accommodative amplitudes. This
will diminish as the child ages. Placing reliance on an infantile
accommodative system to overcome refractive error is a recipe for
accommodative and convergence disaster down the road for this child.
It seems to me that these parents are considering all logical options
here.

STFU.

yea and this mother is already thinking of operating on her 3 year old
daughter because shes -11.5 myopic yet she sees 20/60 with or without
glasses

It's an invasive procedure and its widely touted focusing function is
essentially non-existent.

Definitely not a good lens for anyone, especially not for kids.

Maybe some day...

w.stacy, o.d.

concerned parent via MedKB.com wrote:

- quote -

i have been talking about my daughter for the past couple of months on this
site. i was wondering if anyone knows if the crystalens(i think i have the
name right) which is used for lens replacement and can accomodate, can it be
used on kids or is it just for adults? and if it can't be used why not?

--
Message posted via MedKB.com
http://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/vision/200603/1