Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What are you talking about Lone Ranger? The shape of the eye and the corrective nature of a lens has everything to do with clear vision. Light has to strike the eye for any kind of vision to occur. Lessans never said otherwise.

You have said otherwise -- and quite forcefully -- on numerous occasions.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are so ignorant I have to put you on ignore. We're talking myopic surgery, which does not have to do with someone losing their vision. You're putting your damn foot in your mouth every word you utter just because you want to believe I have nothing positive to offer. Get off your high horse. You're now officially on ignore.

All this because I disagree with her fathers joke. I do think it was funny, in an eye bleeding sort of way, but I don't agree that he had anything serious to offer the rest of humanity. None of his ideas would have lived up to his claims, Lessans was wrong.

[thedoc]

It should be understood that Peacegirl is opposed to anything mainstream, medicine, philosophy, and mostly reality.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You have said otherwise -- and quite forcefully -- on numerous occasions.

I did but I was wrong. Lessans always said light strikes the eye. Why are you all still harping on this? This is a different thread.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

So the FDA warned some LASIK providers over advertising that "failed to adequately warn consumers about the risks of laser eye surgery."

peacegirl, didn't you start this thread complaining that consumers were not sufficiently warned of risks and about the FDA and "their advertising"? peacegirl, should the FDA not have issued warnings?

This is an excellent point. The fact that the crooked/incompetent FDA deemed the disclosures of certain LASIK providers inadequate is conclusive proof that the disclosures were adequate, yes?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A big problem is false advertising and the way people are misled regarding the true complication rate. I started this thread because the more I looked into this "miracle" procedure, for many it has been a total nightmare. I wanted to make people aware that this surgery is extremely risky and if something goes wrong, the damage has already been done whether a lawsuit is won or not.

With regard to anyone who agrees to any medical intervention (surgical or otherwise) based solely on advertising claims, see #1.

"1. Negligence on the part of the patient: Though the patient was able to do so the patient didn't bother to read the consent form. Patient is guilty of failure to exercise due diligence and of lying about having read the consent form before signing it."

Caveat emptor

[peacegirl]

dupe

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

This is an excellent point. The fact that the crooked/incompetent FDA deemed the disclosures of certain LASIK providers inadequate is conclusive proof that the disclosures were adequate, yes?

The FDA approved a procedure that is extremely risky and has devastating consequences leading to a number of suicides. This is not always due to incompetency but rather to an inherent danger with the procedure itself. False advertising has take advantage of a naive public that trusts the FDA's approval of a treatment that was deemed safe and effective. This has turned out to be a complete lie since many individuals who met all of the qualifications met with a devastating result. Your precious FDA is full of shit.

[ChuckF]

peacegirl, where did you stumble on to this latest nonsense babble outrage?

peacegirl, have you put this on your Facebook page or your blog for public comment?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You have said otherwise -- and quite forcefully -- on numerous occasions.

The Messiah said so quite clearly himself in that hypothetical about God turning on the sun at noon.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

peacegirl, where did you stumble on to this latest nonsense babble outrage?

peacegirl, have you put this on your Facebook page or your blog for public comment?

Facebook is a game-changer, Chuck. It facilitates random Internet dumbasses fapping to the same outrage porn while pretending to understand stuff that's light years beyond their meager comprehension abilities.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We're talking myopic surgery

Don't you mean that we're talking word-opic surgery?

Seeing similarities is what takes place when someone does not learn distance properly and he may be called near-sighted when in reality he is word-sighted. Supposing we were to teach a child that near is far and far as near and then place him in surroundings where his near and far vision would be tested. Can you imagine how quickly he would be called near-sighted? This child would argue that the blurry is focused and the focused is blurry while the other children, brought up differently, would reverse the argument. If someone gets confused between blurry and sharp, it is only because the relation between distances was never accurately photographed. In the majority of cases distances are learned in a haphazard manner and if a clear negative was developed when looking at a something subtly blurry, he will see blurry just as you would see something blurry through blurry glasses even though the object was clear. This is equivalent to getting confused between certain type leaves and trees only because these differences were not accurately photographed in relation to the word.

[peacegirl]

STUDIES PROVE LASIK=DANGEROUS

[peacegirl]

Lasik Consent Form - YouTube

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did but I was wrong. Lessans always said light strikes the eye. Why are you all still harping on this? This is a different thread.

From the book, 2011 edition,

"to show
you all the knowledge hidden behind it, it is absolutely necessary to
prove exactly why the eyes are not a sense organ. Now tell me, did it
ever occur to you that many of the apparent truths we have literally
accepted come to us in the form of words that do not accurately
symbolize what exists, making our problem that much more difficult
since this has denied us the ability to see reality for what it is? In
fact, it can be demonstrated at the birth of a child that no object is
capable of getting a reaction from the eyes because nothing is
impinging on the optic nerve to cause it, although any number of
sounds, tastes, touches or smells can get an immediate reaction since
the nerve endings are being struck by something external."

"What is seen through the eyes is an efferent experience.
If a lion roared in that room a newborn baby would hear the sound
and react because this impinges on the eardrum and is then
transmitted to the brain. The same holds true for anything that
makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending, but this is far
from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve
ending in this organ. The brain records various sounds, tastes,
touches and smells in relation to the objects from which these
experiences are derived, and then looks through the eyes to see these
things that have become familiar as a result of the relation. This
desire is an electric current which turns on or focuses the eyes to see
that which exists — completely independent of man’s perception —
118
in the external world. He doesn’t see these objects because they strike
the optic nerve; he sees them because they are there to be seen. But
in order to look, there must be a desire to see. The child becomes
aware that something will soon follow something else which then
arouses attention, anticipation, and a desire to see the objects of the
relation. Consequently, to include the eyes as one of the senses when
this describes stimuli from the outside world making contact with a
nerve ending is completely erroneous and equivalent to calling a
potato, a fruit. Under no conditions can the eyes be called a sense
organ unless, as in Aristotle’s case, it was the result of an inaccurate
observation that was never corrected."

Then he describes his own particular form of child abuse,

"As her eyes
are focused on a dog I shall repeat the word dog rapidly in her ear.
When she turns away I stop. This will be continued until she looks
for him when hearing the word which indicates that a relation between
this particular sound and object has been established and a photograph
126
taken. Soon this relation is formed which makes her conscious of a
particular difference that exists in the external world."

Which explains a lot about Peacegirl.

[peacegirl]

Ectasia after LASIK, post-LASIK keratectasia - YouTube

[peacegirl]

This gets me so mad. Who the hell are these idiots at the F D A to force complaintants to give their accounts of devastating complications in only 5 minutes? Have they completely lost their fuckin minds?

FDA Lasik Hearing: Terrilyn Bankes, MD - YouTube

[ChuckF]

State-funded LASIK for all Muslim students!

[peacegirl]

LASIK is safer than contact lenses MYTH - LASIK Newswire

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

State-funded LASIK for all Muslim students!

The demand for state funded LASIK for Muslim students is in accordance with the law of the land.

[peacegirl]

This is upsetting.

http://visionsurgeryrehab.evecommuni...ion_images.pdf

[peacegirl]

People are entitled to choose what they want. Sadly, patients are rarely given the truth about the rate of complications due to the fact that the truth would scare many people from following through with the procedure.This could potentially put lasik surgeons out of business. This forces doctors to downplay the adverse complications that have arisen in the literature. Access to the internet has given people a more objective way to look at the pros and cons and sadly there are many cons. It's good to be able to have free choice. Just make sure you are comparing apples to apples before making a decision that will affect your quality of life, good or bad. It's your choice in the end but if you lose quality of life due to not being able to see, you have no one to blame but yourself. I know that sounds harsh but with all the information out there, it is the consumer's responsibility to do their homework. If you accept the risks, you have to accept the consequences.

http://lasikcomplications.com/12_thi...fore_LASIK.pdf

[ChuckF]

peacegirl, who are you talking to?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

peacegirl, who are you talking to?

Anyone who's reading this thread other than the people who have a vendetta against me.

[peacegirl]

FDA statement-Refractive Surgery Syndrome - Topic