View Single Post
  #52  
Old 10-12-2016, 05:46 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
When you sign the consent form you have no recourse to sue for damages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Maturin
Utterly bereft of truth. A couple of questions:

1. Where do you get this nonsense?
Why then are surgeons insistent that you sign this consent form? It obviously protects them from legal recourse by an unhappy patient.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Maturin
2. Why are you so resistant to using the list?
Because the list doesn't apply here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin View Post
As godfry correctly points out, regulatory agencies ain't exactly the best sources of complete information in a profit-based healthcare system. And indeed, there are plenty of LASIK problem stories out there. Mary Pierce, a former pro tennis player of some renown, reportedly had some serious issues back in the early 2000s.

But, as always, unsubstantiated conspiracy mongering and emotionalistic claptrap amount to exactly jack.
Either they were aware of serious risks and ignored them, or they didn't have enough knowledge about the potential risks. Waxler said how many eyes and lives will be ruined in order to make a living?
She's one of thousands. It will probably take a well known celebrity who has been damaged to bring this issue to a head.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Maturin
The first sentence isn't germane to anything I wrote, and the second is borderline gibberish.
It's not gibberish. Waxler said, "How many eyes will be ruined for the sake of making a living?" Sorry if that doesn't make sense to you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
Dr. Waxler petitioned the FDA to withdraw pre-market approval for the devices used to perform LASIK procedures and issue a public health advisory. The FDA's response is available here. Perhaps you could explain, in a detailed point-by-point manner, exactly where and how the FDA went wrong in its response.

Also - and I realize this may be a bridge too far - please provide the detailed, point-by-point exposition without citing the websites of any anti-Semitic, moon landing denying Sandy Hook truthers, plzkthx.
They didn't do enough premarketing testing before approval, which has now caused many injuries.

Quote:
Waxler said he gave approval but was not informed of the risks, only the benefits. I'm sure he has guilt for approving a procedure that has caused serious harm to a good portion (20% approximately) of those who were told the complications are temporary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Maturin"
If you can't or won't or don't want to provide the requested detailed point-by-point exposition of where and how the FDA went wrong in its response to Dr. Waxler, then please just say so. Candor is better than inept obfuscatory nonsense, yes?
I am not here to condemn the FDA as a regulatory entity other than to say most people take for granted that when a procedure is given approval that means it is safe. It is hard to draw the line as to who owns most of the responsibility for the growing number of people whose lives have been devastated. Somewhere along the line the ethical ball has been dropped.
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Last edited by peacegirl; 10-12-2016 at 05:58 PM.
Reply With Quote
 
Page generated in 0.17554 seconds with 11 queries