Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is LASIK Eye Surgery Safe? FDA Scientist Regrets Saying 'Yes'
Politics Daily ^ | 2/12/11 | Bonnie Goldstein

Posted on 02/12/2011 8:33:57 PM PST by Nachum

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-104 next last
To: NonValueAdded
They actually cut the cornea with a microkeratome:

http://www.lasik1.com/LASIK_Detailed.html

I'm sure that makes you feel much better!

51 posted on 02/12/2011 10:18:12 PM PST by catnipman (Cat Nipman: Made from the right stuff!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
Ah, Wiki.

If you have a contradictory source to refute it, I'm open to reading it.

As I said, eyes cannot be replaced. It might be worth the risk to some. Not to me.

That's your choice, and feeling that way, you definitely shouldn't have it done. But you're not just saying what YOU'D do. You're warning people about dangers with zero evidence to support your contentions. I know a lot of people that have had the surgery, and every one of us would do it again in a heartbeat. It's improved our lives that much.

52 posted on 02/12/2011 10:20:16 PM PST by Wissa (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

In February of 2003 I was looking for a job and worked temporarily for a company transcribing medical conference recordings. One of the company’s we did work for was Alcon, who manufactures artificial tears. I transcribed a conference that was held in Madrid with international opthalmologists that was assisting Alcon with development of a better formula for their product. It sems the preservatives in their current recipe for artificial tears was causing scarring tissue on patient’s eyes because of the chemical reaction when the artificial tears dropped onto the eyeball. They KNEW this was happening. Didn’t bother them, they were still placing it on the shelves anyway until they could develop a new formula that ‘hopefully’ would not have the same chemical reaction or sans preservatives.

At this conference it was rather amazing to hear them describe all the side effects of LASIK, one such being their ooops slips when they managed to damage the patients tear ducts, and go ohhhhh my I just whacked off your natural ability to produce tears that lubricate your eyes’!!!! Oh myyyy, well, NOW, you’re forever going to have to use artificial tears...that leave SCARS on your eyeballs! NO PROBLEMO!

WOW! They had just invented a new disease for eye patients—dry eye syndrome—that just created a nice new cash cow for their practice! And they were ‘joking’ about it!

Hopefully by now they have developed a new product that is not leaving scar tissue on people’s eyeballs!

So, there went my desire for LASIK surgery. I’ll stick with my monthly contact lenses, thank you very much! I have NO problem at all pulling them out and keeping them clean...and I haven’t spent nearly $4200 yet on them. Plus, I barely know they’re in my eye.


53 posted on 02/12/2011 10:22:23 PM PST by RowdyFFC (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
I had my eyes done about 2002. I was near sighted with 20/150 and 20/300 and some astigmatism. I was corrected to be far sighted and the astigmatism was corrected. I am still 20/20 in both eyes but only use cheapy reading glasses for close up work.

The ability to hold your eyes absolutely still during the procedure is vital as is the post-op treatment with various eyes drops. My optometrist was obsessive about the post-op care. You also have to be evaluated prior to the procedure to see if your are a good candidate. I have no regrets and it was some of the best money I ever spent.

54 posted on 02/12/2011 10:23:54 PM PST by Polynikes (Haakkaa Paalle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

I had Lasik in 1997 before anyone else I knew had it. It was great then and yes, there were some things that weren’t so good...like my night vision isn’t very good..but I had 20/20 vision for the first time in my life. Almost 15 years later I wear glasses and contacts some times. It doesn’t stop the natural aging process. I would do it again in a heartbeat.


55 posted on 02/12/2011 10:27:50 PM PST by Hildy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rbg81

I think it depends on what you pay. My wife had it done for about $4,000 6 years ago. No more headaches or glasses. It was from a very reputable Dr. in Atlanta. Stay away from those $800 dollar offers.


56 posted on 02/12/2011 10:45:40 PM PST by aliquando (A Scout is T, L, H, F, C, K, O, C, T, B, C, and R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
This is a story about one scientist haunted by what, he fears, was a bad decision. Between 1996 and 2000, the scientist, Dr. Morris Waxler, was chief of the FDA's Diagnostic and Surgical Devices Branch and in charge of approving the LASIK medical device to restore visual acuity. And now, Waxler thinks that the FDA's standards were not tough enough.

I had LASIK done in 1996 - in another country which used the most modern equipment, since the FDA's standards at that time had only approved a single laser for experimental, off-brand use in LASIK - a laser that was originally made to etch circuit boards. It's one of the best things I've ever done for myself - my vision is still amazing almost 15 years later.

The FDA has gone far beyond legitimate regulation to prevent fraud and abuse - these days they're an intrusive nanny pre-empting the ability of Americans to make their own informed choices on health care.
57 posted on 02/12/2011 11:15:28 PM PST by AnotherUnixGeek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
I had it done in '03. Found a brilliant surgeon in Vancouver BC, one of the originals. I had severe astigmatism in one eye - 20/300 - moderate in the other. One month later I was delighted to have 20/20 in one eye, 20/30 in the other.

It wasn't good enough. He gave me a free re-treat in the "bad" eye and when he was done it was 20/15 in both eyes together. I think I was told maybe 20 times, "Hey, you're over 40, so even when we get done you're going to need reading glasses, you realize that?" Yeah, Doc. 10-dollar cheaters instead of 300-dollar trifocals. It isn't a problem.

Some dry-eye issues afterward, nothing severe. Had a few rings night-driving but then I did with glasses too. Now that's gone away. I can now shoot at 500 meters, iron sights, what I couldn't even see at 200 when I was 30.

Some advice: find somebody who's done it a lot and who has a very good record of success. It isn't for everybody, so make sure you get screened by somebody in a position to tell you you're not a candidate if you don't have sufficient corneal tissue to spare. Make sure it's what you really want to do, and then do it fearlessly.

In my case it was a life-changing success. It isn't for everyone - at the time of my surgery there was a 15% chance of a neutral or negative outcome. I was one of the 85% and I'm absolutely delighted.

58 posted on 02/12/2011 11:37:38 PM PST by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

FDA? Aren’t they the ones that decided after 40 years and hundreds of millions of doses that propoxyphene( Darvon, Darvocet)should not be on the market because it was not effective or safe?


59 posted on 02/12/2011 11:56:40 PM PST by Cyman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill

Who was your LASIK doctor?

(The ones I hear ads for are all named something like Mohammad.)


60 posted on 02/13/2011 12:11:36 AM PST by UnwashedPeasant (Don't nuke me, bro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Wissa
The Wiki article on LASIK says the risk of significant loss of vision with LASIK is 1 in 10,000.

As someone else said, I'd really be hesitant to take Wiki as the final authority. Considering that anyone can put an article there, and that there is a lot of money in this field--the info in Wiki may not be unbiased. If you want to find out about it, I would suggest going to a source like PubMed, or Medline (whatever the one for the general public is).

I've heard that the risk of bad outcomes is more like 5%. I don't remember where I saw that. There's a reason people who get Lasik are not allowed to pilot airplanes. My concern (aside from having headache-inducing vision problems afterward) is that LASIK would weaken the structure of the eyes. I'll take being nearsighted, as long as the eye structure remains strong.

61 posted on 02/13/2011 12:21:03 AM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
I don't want to shine lasers into my eyes.

I want lasers to come OUT of my eyes.

Like in some cheap Japanese monster movie.

62 posted on 02/13/2011 12:25:51 AM PST by Lazamataz (If Illegal Aliens are Undocumented Workers, then Thieves are Undocumented Shoppers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UnwashedPeasant
It was at what is now Lasik MD, on Georgia St in Vancouver BC. The guy I had is now retired, unfortunately. Their prices have come way down - I paid a little over $3000, but it was worth every penny. They're now advertising $500 an eye.

Do lots and lots of research first. Know exactly what you're getting into. They offer free consultation and will absolutely tell you if you're not a Lasik candidate. That isn't the only option anyway.

So, I went through the thing and rested for about 20 minutes and toddled toward the hotel - you really want to sleep right away to let the tissue start to heal. The Doc says, "Oh, those glasses in your pocket? You'll never wear them again. Drop them in the box at the door. We'll give them to the homeless."

When I got up the next morning I opened the curtains in the hotel room, which was overlooking the harbor. Vancouver is stunningly beautiful. Saw a seaplane landing, and I realized I could read the side numbers. Unbelievable.

63 posted on 02/13/2011 12:34:55 AM PST by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
I should have read the Wiki article before posting this.

The Wiki article actually does discuss the common side effects of Lasik.

Also, the full in-context quote regarding the loss of vision is this:

On October 10, 2006, WebMD reported that statistical analysis revealed that contact lens wear infection risk is greater than the infection risk from LASIK.[33] Daily contact lens wearers have a 1-in-100 chance of developing a serious, contact lens-related eye infection in 30 years of use, and a 1-in-2,000 chance of suffering significant vision loss as a result of infection. The researchers calculated the risk of significant vision loss consequence of LASIK surgery to be closer to 1-in-10,000 cases.

In other words, the 1-in-10,000 risk of significant vision loss quoted by the other poster refers ONLY to loss from infection, and no other cause.

The Wiki article also said that studies show that 92-98% of patients are satisfied with the procedure, with a metastudy showing 95.4% satisfaction. The dissatisfied patients are presumably those whose vision was damaged by the procedure--a failure rate a little too high for my liking, considering how precious vision is. Elsewhere, the article more or less confirms my fears that the eye structure will be weakened by such a procedure--some of the bad outcomes involve obvious eye structural damage, like bulges in the cornea.

Long story short: LASIK, no thanks.

64 posted on 02/13/2011 12:37:39 AM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: montag813

Woods’ lasik lasted 8 years and he had it done a second time in 2007.


65 posted on 02/13/2011 12:40:36 AM PST by stylin19a
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

I take care of a friend who wore glasses all her life and the ripe ole age of 85 had Lasik.

Been 15 years and she doesn’t wear glasses anymore.

Won’t throw them away but doesn’t wear them.


66 posted on 02/13/2011 1:13:41 AM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously..... You won't live through it anyway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

I can tell you a friend of mine, who is 100yrs and 6mnths, had Lasik 16 years ago.

Wore glasses her entire life and hasn’t worn them since.


67 posted on 02/13/2011 1:16:17 AM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously..... You won't live through it anyway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Powder..patch..ball FIRE!

I had lasik surgery done in March 2001. I was extremely nearsighted with astigmatism.

I haven’t had to wear ANY glasses since then, unless I am reading a 3 point type in poor light and then use a magnifier.

Best procedure ever.


68 posted on 02/13/2011 1:36:15 AM PST by BallandPowder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Mine turned out fantastic.


69 posted on 02/13/2011 2:01:17 AM PST by GOP Poet (Obama is an OLYMPIC failure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: irishtenor

Mine was done 2001 I believe and it has been one of the best things I have ever done. I also have eagle eye vision. No more contacts or glasses for me. :-). Glad to hear you like your results. :-)


70 posted on 02/13/2011 2:03:09 AM PST by GOP Poet (Obama is an OLYMPIC failure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: familyop

My wife and I both had LASIK in ‘03 doing I’m still 20/15, 20/20. It’s better then 20/2600 and wearing coke bottle glasses.


71 posted on 02/13/2011 2:55:05 AM PST by personalaccts (Is George W going to protect the border?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

*save for later reading*


72 posted on 02/13/2011 3:55:33 AM PST by doesnt suffer fools gladly (Liberals lie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

Three yrs. ago for me. At first, car lights at night were awful, but that corrected itself after a while. My night vision isn’t good, but it wasn’t before the surgery either. If I’m tired, the monovision factor (and I’m not sure the surgeon didn’t get my dominant eye mixed up)doesn’t kick in like I wish it would. If rested, it does. - I won’t rate it for fear of influencing someone else either way.


73 posted on 02/13/2011 5:07:03 AM PST by Twinkie (Two wrongs don't make a right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

LOL


74 posted on 02/13/2011 5:15:37 AM PST by Twinkie (Two wrongs don't make a right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: apillar

My fireteam partner in battleschool had laser eye surgery, and when it got dark, even in winter with snow on the ground and a full moon, he’d have to hang onto my webbing to let me guide him to our OP.

He also cannot drive after dusk.


75 posted on 02/13/2011 7:20:43 AM PST by Bulwyf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

My neighbor had LASIK years ago in his one good eye.

He ended up with his previously blind eye, and a severely damaged ‘good’ eye from the LASIK. Now 10 years later, he’s nearly 100% blind.


76 posted on 02/13/2011 7:37:45 AM PST by Balding_Eagle (Overproduction, one of the top five worries of the American Farmer each and every year..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

I had LASIK in September 2003.No problems, and I went from being nearly legally blind (20/850-20/900; legal blindness is 20/1000) to having 20/15 vision. No problems to date, though the doctor’s statement that I would still need reading glasses when I got older (over 40) proved correct.:-( I hear there’s a new form of LASIK being developed that’ll fix presbyopia as well as crappy vision in general.


77 posted on 02/13/2011 7:48:33 AM PST by kaylar (It's MARTIAL law. Not marshal(l) or marital! This has been a spelling PSA. PS Secede not succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kaylar

Let me add that my reading glasses (got late year) are 1.25s. Anything above that is too strong and distorts my vision too much. No dry eye, and my night vision is unchanged. No regrets.


78 posted on 02/13/2011 7:52:42 AM PST by kaylar (It's MARTIAL law. Not marshal(l) or marital! This has been a spelling PSA. PS Secede not succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

I regret it.

Never mind the inaccurate correction that required a redo, or the poor healing that required another redo.

I previously had perfect sharp vision (when corrected with glasses) and now I have soft vision in the dark, and night driving is a challenge. (Some newer “Waveform” systems allegedly correct a larger area and should be considered. Imagine selling me that hack service, knowing that it does not correct over my entire dilated pupil!)

Oh, and the lasik correction drifted, and I STILL need glasses for all activities.


79 posted on 02/13/2011 8:12:59 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
I've heard that the risk of bad outcomes is more like 5%. I don't remember where I saw that. There's a reason people who get Lasik are not allowed to pilot airplanes.

About one minute on Google showed me that people who have had the procedure CAN become pilots, both commercial and military.

My experience over time is that the info on Wiki is usually about 10 times more reliable than what I'd get with FreeRepublic as my sole source. On FreeRepublic, like most any other forum, there are often a ton of people making a ton of statements of fact about things that turn out to not be true.

I have no problem with people deciding they don't want to take the risk of getting the surgery. However, I get a bit aggravated when I see people making up a bunch of stuff to steer OTHER people away from getting it done.

80 posted on 02/13/2011 8:14:50 AM PST by Wissa (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Wissa

Hmm, I’m the same as you, in my 20’s and have considered getting it done.


81 posted on 02/13/2011 8:18:18 AM PST by BenKenobi (Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong. - Silent Cal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
Both my parents had this done about ten years ago. Still going good with no regrets.

I'm 41 and my eyesight is still around 20/20, but I've noticed that things are starting to get fuzzier at distance. I've always had the "eagle eyes", but everyone gets older at some point...

82 posted on 02/13/2011 8:30:43 AM PST by Dead Corpse (III%. The last line in the sand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wissa
About one minute on Google showed me that people who have had the procedure CAN become pilots, both commercial and military.

Then that is a fairly recent change in policy. It certainly was NOT the case a few years ago.

My experience over time is that the info on Wiki is usually about 10 times more reliable than what I'd get with FreeRepublic as my sole source. On FreeRepublic, like most any other forum, there are often a ton of people making a ton of statements of fact about things that turn out to not be true.

I have no problem with people deciding they don't want to take the risk of getting the surgery. However, I get a bit aggravated when I see people making up a bunch of stuff to steer OTHER people away from getting it done.

Where do you have any evidence that I made up a bunch of stuff? If you read the entire Wiki article, you would have seen that it corroborates what I said, and what I said was based on a variety of sources. (Once I read something, it stays stuck in my head forever, I think.) I also encouraged people to go to slightly more reliable sources than Wiki--i.e., Pubmed and Medline, which are the official databases dedicated to cataloguing medical research. You can't just pick and choose which facts to present to promote your point of view.

If people are considering such a surgery, they deserve to have ALL the facts and to know ALL the risks. To me, a 1 in 20 risk of ending up worse than before is unacceptably high. To you, it might not be. That doesn't mean you deserve to have the risk hidden from you.

83 posted on 02/13/2011 8:39:42 AM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

I have done a ton of research on the subject - because I need my eyes!

I will share what I have discovered in hundreds of hours of research. Not all LASIK machines are the same - after looking through FDA files, there are many that are not good at all. Unless you check what laser system is being used, you are taking your chances. Some doctors have older laser machines and are still paying them off - which means they do NOT have the latest machinery - and without the best laser, the surgeon is only going to make a minor difference.

Also, the FDA is VERY SLOW at approving LASIK systems, because of this there are much better LASIK lasers outside of the USA - (thanks FDA for keeping the best equipment from the American people (/sarc)).

Also, the correction is different as to whether you are nearsighted or farsighted. Nearsightedness is easier to correct, based on reducing the curve of the corneal lens. For farsighted people the corneal curve needs to be steepened - so the laser for farsighted correction has to be much better! It’s harder to build up steepness by cutting away tissue.

After my research (I am farsighted) the best laser is the Zeiss MEL-80 with CRS Master software that customizes the treatment - of course I have to leave the country to get the right treatment (again, thanks FDA). The next best looks to be the Allegretto Wavelight (also using the custom software for that platform). The VisX Star is good for nearsightedness, but nowhere near as good as the Mel-80 for farsightedness.

Next is a very skilled surgeon. The one I have found actually has helped design the laser I will use. Avoid eye mills as they are squeezing every last dime out of their sometime old equipment.

Obviously - do your own research - ask your doctor what he is using. Look at the trial data for the laser and see how well it has hit the target correction.

I know many Doctors and I only partly trust them - they deal with so much tragedy that they really don’t see you as much more than a number - so if they screw up they will still sleep well - they have learned to not be bothered by their mistakes. Ultimately, it’s up to you to protect you health. But that is the conservative mindset - isn’t it?


84 posted on 02/13/2011 9:20:22 AM PST by LibertyLA (videos fighting libtards!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReformedBeckite

“still have to wear the cheaters for reading, that is something they don’t tell you, “

I had Lasik done over ten years ago (was happy then, and still happy now), and that was one of the things that my surgeon made very clear to me. He told me that Presbyopia, or aging of the eye, would still occur as I got older, and I would still need glasses for that. He even went on to warn me that because of the Lasik surgery, that presbyopia would probably hit me sooner than if I hadn’t had the surgery. When I came in for my follow-up appointment the day after surgery, one of the things he did was hand me a newspaper to see if I could still read fine print at a reasonable distance. He was very honest and up-front to be sure that I had realistic expectations before I gave my approval for the surgery.


85 posted on 02/13/2011 9:23:22 AM PST by RedWhiteBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Ten+ years ago I went from 20/400 to 20/10. Still have it. Wife went from 20/400 to 20/10 then regressed a few years later to 20/35. Still 20/400 to 20/35 is pretty damned good.

The problem with the surgery has been the fly-by-night operation centers that bring in new doctors to perform the procedure they are not that familiar with. People think a $4,000 operation should be the same when they pay $500, not using the common sense God gave a dog to rethink such a cheap cost and what kind of equipment, doctors and staff are they really paying for.

Eyes are a two in a lifetime affair. Before considering altering them a person needs to check out the doctors and facility and equipment and see just what success rates they have had.

I chose the doctor my wife knew profesionally that had been in business for 30 years and was extremely well traiing and participated in the creation of the program. His outcomes were nearly 100% with any failures that of the patient and not his or his equipment. I wouldn’t have any procedure performed where I didn’t go to the best doctor possible.


86 posted on 02/13/2011 9:23:36 AM PST by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
Where do you have any evidence that I made up a bunch of stuff?

I never said you were the only one doing it. I see it on threads on pretty much every subject.

On this thread I'm seeing warnings that sound like "Yeah, you're fine now, but just wait. In a few years you're going to be totally blind!" Where's the evidence to support that statement?

I see a lot of completely unsourced claims about things like not being able to become a pilot and it being only a temporary fix and claims about the likelihood of your vision becoming worse as a result of the treatment. If 95% of the people are satisfied with the results, that does NOT automatically mean that 5% came out worse as a result. Some percent of that 5% most likely had their vision improved, but not as much as they had hoped for. For all I know, 95% of the 5% that weren't satisfied actually had their vision improved. Show me a legitimate source that says that 5% had their vision worse after the treatment, or retract the claim.

I agree with you that people had better do their research before letting somebody do some elective surgical procedure on their eyes, or any other part of their body for that matter. However, I'd hope their decision isn't swayed too much by people that seem to have an agenda of trying to get other people to reject getting it done based on made-up claims. It's as if the people arguing against getting it done have some need for other people to also reject it in order to feel better about their own decision.

87 posted on 02/13/2011 9:38:41 AM PST by Wissa (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: MissMack99

My opthalmologist, who’s a surgeon, wears glasses....that’s enough of a wordless testimony for me.


88 posted on 02/13/2011 9:42:17 AM PST by ErnBatavia (It's not the Obama Administration....it's the "Obama Regime".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

I have had it since Nov 2004 with no problems.


89 posted on 02/13/2011 9:47:53 AM PST by bmwcyle (It is Satan's fault)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: irishtenor
I had the lenses in my eyes replaced with prescription lenses........The same procedure as catarac surgery only with the presc. lens.

I went from having to wear glasses since I was 4 years old and 20/200 in my left eye with astigmatism to glasses free.......I can read any size print and have distance sight too.

As a side note, I have to wear reading glasses for computer viewing.....

The eye surgeries were not cheap but definitely worth it.

90 posted on 02/13/2011 9:51:08 AM PST by Hot Tabasco (Oh Magoo, you've done it again.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
Hmm, I’m the same as you, in my 20’s and have considered getting it done.

Do a lot of research. There are always improvements being made. My daughter in law is thinking of getting it done, but says she's seen that there is some procedure now that has less downside risks associated with it. I don't know the specifics, and I don't try to steer her toward any particular approach. Ultimately, she's the one who would have to sign the statement before any procedure acknowledging that she is aware of the risks, including the risk of becoming blind as a result.

People that are satisfied with glasses or contacts (as my son is) should stick with what they're satisfied with. LASIK should only be done for people who hate the limitations placed on their life by glasses or contacts to the point that they're willing to take that risk of blindness. The risk is low, but it is there, and it's not something to be ignored.

In my case, while I was waiting for my ride to get there to pick me up to take me in for the procedure, I remember that I sat and watched the geese walking around in the field by my house and realized I may never see that (or anything else) again if things turned out bad. I hated wearing glasses, and not being able to see without them, enough that I was willing to accept that risk.

91 posted on 02/13/2011 10:25:34 AM PST by Wissa (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: ErnBatavia
My opthalmologist, who’s a surgeon, wears glasses....that’s enough of a wordless testimony for me.

Sometimes, wordless testimonies can be misinterpreted.

Have you considered the possibility that the procedure just might affect his ability to perform well in his lucrative career in ways that may not be applicable for most of the millions of people that AREN'T eye surgeons?

92 posted on 02/13/2011 10:35:28 AM PST by Wissa (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Wissa

Well in that case I should not get it done. I can see well enough now.

What concerns me is the night vision. I am starting to have night vision issues when driving, which is a bad sign.


93 posted on 02/13/2011 12:34:08 PM PST by BenKenobi (Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong. - Silent Cal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Wissa
I never said you were the only one doing it. I see it on threads on pretty much every subject.

So, you not only are not backing down from calling me a liar, but you're trying to say it's okay to call me one because lots of people on FR lie? That just digs the hole deeper.

Just because YOU were willing to take the very real (1 in 20) chance of having your vision worsened or your eyes permanently damaged to avoid having to wear glasses (for a few years, anyway, you WILL have to wear reading glasses later on, no matter what), does not mean that EVERYONE is willing to take that risk. Withholding information from people to try to sway them to have an expensive procedure that has a 5% chance of harming them is a form of lying that's much worse, IMO, than giving people all the info up front, good and bad, and letting them make up their own minds.

You MIGHT try reading that ENTIRE Wiki article, not just the parts you like, and maybe some other info, before you go around calling everyone who expresses reservations about the LASIK procedure a liar.

94 posted on 02/13/2011 1:10:27 PM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

I explained to you the reason that it looks like the 5% number isn’t accurate as a figure of the percent who have had their vision reduced.


95 posted on 02/13/2011 1:23:32 PM PST by Wissa (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre

ha


96 posted on 02/13/2011 2:30:07 PM PST by bboop (Stealth Tutor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: familyop
Instead of bifocals have you considered "progressive" lenses?

I know that anything with the word "progressive" in it is suspect around here, but they have some advantages over bifocals, along with some disadvantages.

Basically the prescription changes from the bottom of the lens toward the top. The top of the lens is set for long distance vision, and the bottom for close-up. There is always some point along the lens where you can see a specific distance with extreme clarity and focus.

The only downside is that if you are looking at a particular point in space for a long time (ex. a computer screen or TV) then you tend to keep your neck in a very specific spot and it can get stiff and sore.

I have progressives which I use when moving about, driving, etc. I have another prescription which is specifically set for the distance between my eyes and my computer screen. That way I can move my neck around while working or Freeping. My computer glasses are the cheapest I could get with the cheapest frames, and no coatings. I didn't want to spring for two sets of fashionista specs.

Best of luck with your new glasses!

97 posted on 02/13/2011 2:38:12 PM PST by who_would_fardels_bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear
"Instead of bifocals have you considered "progressive" lenses?...There is always some point along the lens where you can see a specific distance with extreme clarity and focus."

That sounds great! Thanks, and I'll try those the next time (probably not long, with the plastic lenses and all). 'Till then, I'll just wear "the line" and go around looking like an old man. ...leaving a turn signal on every now and then gives me away anyway. ;-)


98 posted on 02/13/2011 5:49:45 PM PST by familyop (cbt. engr. (cbt), NG, '89-' 96, Duncan Hunter or no-vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom; Wissa
Last spring USAF did away with that policy. They've been following lasik results for some time now, and finally permit such to fly their aircraft.

Army still does not allow SF HALO Operators to enter training if they've had lasik. Same for Navy divers.

Many PDs now allow lasik procedures for applicants if they've had the procedure done more than one year prior.

99 posted on 10/18/2011 10:10:57 AM PDT by donozark (Sam Walton:"It was paper when we started, and it's paper afterwards.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

I had 20/400 in both eyes with astigmatism. LASIK took that to 20/10+ and no astigmatism. I can see like a bat day or night. Perfect vision. That was 12 years ago.


100 posted on 10/18/2011 10:28:24 AM PDT by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-104 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson