Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Public Baths > Lifestyle

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #26  
Old 10-11-2016, 05:31 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCLXXXVI
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Scary considering these are our only set of eyes. The results cannot be undone.
This is probably wrong, the body has an amazing ability to heal. When My wife had back surgery, she went to a surgeon who specialized in fixing what other surgeons had done wrong. And now they are developing eye transplants, so if the worst happens, the eye can be replaced.
That's total crap. Many of these botched eye surgeries cannot be corrected to presurgical sight.
Backpedaling as usual. First you say that "the results cannot be undone" implying that fixing a mistake is not possible in all cases. Now you are qualifying your statement by saying "most" surgeries. Typical Peacegirl CYA.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you donít know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (10-11-2016), The Man (10-11-2016)
  #27  
Old 10-11-2016, 05:37 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCLXXXVI
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
How can we trust the FDA when there is a conflict of interest in many cases?
I suppose the choice is the FDA and the medical professionals, or Peacegirls loon anti-medicine sites. I think I'll go with the FDA who's only conflict is balancing the cost / benefit ratio and making sure the procedures are as safe as possible for people. What Peacegirl fails to understand is that almost every procedure has some risk involved. Few, if any, will come up to her standards of 100% safe.
We're talking about the only pair of eyes we will ever have. People are not given the truth about the long term risks!
And you are still living in the 50's with your father's book, which was wrong about almost everything. There have been a lot of advances since then by medical science, which you have been trying to deny. I'll take the latest medical science, you can go live in the past if you like. Let us know how that is working out for you.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you donít know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 10-11-2016, 05:43 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCLXXXVI
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumb View Post
Quote:
Just something to think about before going through a risky laser procedure.
Too late! :panic:
How's the white cane working out?
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you donít know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 10-11-2016, 05:50 PM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Refreshingly Stupid
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: VMCMXLIX
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

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.

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.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos don't explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (10-12-2016), Angakuk (10-11-2016), Ari (10-11-2016), But (10-11-2016), Crumb (10-12-2016), livius drusus (10-12-2016), Stormlight (10-11-2016), The Man (10-11-2016), thedoc (10-11-2016)
  #30  
Old 10-11-2016, 06:09 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Scary considering these are our only set of eyes. The results cannot be undone.
This is probably wrong, the body has an amazing ability to heal. When My wife had back surgery, she went to a surgeon who specialized in fixing what other surgeons had done wrong. And now they are developing eye transplants, so if the worst happens, the eye can be replaced.
That's total crap. Many of these botched eye surgeries cannot be corrected to presurgical sight.
Backpedaling as usual. First you say that "the results cannot be undone" implying that fixing a mistake is not possible in all cases. Now you are qualifying your statement by saying "most" surgeries. Typical Peacegirl CYA.
Many of the problems show up months or years later and they are not easily corrected. Some corneas never heal completely. Some corneas start to bulge out from structural weakness causing distorted vision. Dry eyes are a serious problem due to nerve damage but they don't tell you it could be permanent. When you sign the consent form you have no recourse to sue for damages.
__________________
"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell

"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
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 10-11-2016, 06:12 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
How can we trust the FDA when there is a conflict of interest in many cases?
I suppose the choice is the FDA and the medical professionals, or Peacegirls loon anti-medicine sites. I think I'll go with the FDA who's only conflict is balancing the cost / benefit ratio and making sure the procedures are as safe as possible for people. What Peacegirl fails to understand is that almost every procedure has some risk involved. Few, if any, will come up to her standards of 100% safe.
We're talking about the only pair of eyes we will ever have. People are not given the truth about the long term risks!
And you are still living in the 50's with your father's book, which was wrong about almost everything. There have been a lot of advances since then by medical science, which you have been trying to deny. I'll take the latest medical science, you can go live in the past if you like. Let us know how that is working out for you.
My father was not wrong. I have no desire to discuss the book with you.
__________________
"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell

"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
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 10-11-2016, 06:19 PM
mickthinks's Avatar
mickthinks mickthinks is offline
Trying to find the actual stastics
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Augsburg
Gender: Male
Posts: VMDCCCXLV
Images: 19
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mickthinks View Post
How is the FDA connected to lasik?
Obviously you have not seen the deception on their advertising and their interviews.
Now, peacegirl, I think English is your native tongue, in which case you ought to know how endophoric pronouns take their meaning from an antecedent. In this case the pronoun "their" in your reply refers back to the antecedent "FDA" in my question. It may be that you intended to refer to advertising and interviews given by other parties; doctors or clinics or the like; but that's not how English works. Whatever you intended, you were actually saying something about the advertising for and interviews about lasik surgery emanating from the FDA.

I may be wrong, but I am fairly sure the FDA doesn't advertise or give interviews advocating for lasik surgery, nor indeed for any other drugs or therapies. Is it your belief that they do?

Can you cite some examples?
__________________
... it's just an idea

Last edited by mickthinks; 10-11-2016 at 06:55 PM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
aarp (10-12-2016), Adam (10-12-2016), Angakuk (10-11-2016), ChuckF (10-13-2016), Crumb (10-12-2016), Kamilah Hauptmann (10-11-2016), livius drusus (10-12-2016), Stephen Maturin (10-12-2016), Stormlight (10-11-2016), The Man (10-11-2016), thedoc (10-11-2016)
  #33  
Old 10-11-2016, 07:05 PM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVCXLVII
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

I wonder how this stuff fits together with the whole eyes not being sense organs kind of thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Dry eyes are a serious problem due to nerve damage but they don't tell you it could be permanent.
Wait, I thought there were no afferent nerves in the eye.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
aarp (10-12-2016), Adam (10-12-2016), Angakuk (10-11-2016), ChuckF (10-13-2016), Crumb (10-12-2016), livius drusus (10-12-2016), Stephen Maturin (10-12-2016), The Man (10-11-2016), thedoc (10-11-2016)
  #34  
Old 10-11-2016, 07:44 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCLXXXVI
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

Quote:
Originally Posted by But View Post
I wonder how this stuff fits together with the whole eyes not being sense organs kind of thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Dry eyes are a serious problem due to nerve damage but they don't tell you it could be permanent.
Wait, I thought there were no afferent nerves in the eye.
:popcorn:

Since the eyes aren't sense organs, and don't really do anything, you could just have them removed and install double glazing, and the brain could see out much better. :yup:

Apparently if you damage the efferent nerves in the eye, the brain won't know where to look. :eek:
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you donít know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
aarp (10-12-2016), Adam (10-12-2016), Angakuk (10-11-2016), ceptimus (10-11-2016), S.Vashti (10-16-2016), Stormlight (10-13-2016), The Man (10-11-2016)
  #35  
Old 10-11-2016, 07:49 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCLXXXVI
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

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.
But isn't the FDA a branch of the "Internet Checkers" agency?
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you donít know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
aarp (10-12-2016), Angakuk (10-11-2016), Stephen Maturin (10-12-2016)
  #36  
Old 10-11-2016, 09:51 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCLXXXVI
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
My father was not wrong. I have no desire to discuss the book with you.
Of course not, because you know that you have nothing to offer but more fantasy and fiction. Your father's joke was quite funny, it's a pity that you have no idea how to correctly market it, you seem to think he was serious. And now you are trying to foist more fiction on unsuspecting lurkers.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you donít know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 10-11-2016, 10:27 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

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?

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.
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.
__________________
"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell

"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
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 10-11-2016, 10:29 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
My father was not wrong. I have no desire to discuss the book with you.
Of course not, because you know that you have nothing to offer but more fantasy and fiction. Your father's joke was quite funny, it's a pity that you have no idea how to correctly market it, you seem to think he was serious. And now you are trying to foist more fiction on unsuspecting lurkers.
That thread is history so stop bringing it up.
__________________
"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell

"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
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 10-11-2016, 10:38 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

Quote:
Originally Posted by mickthinks View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mickthinks View Post
How is the FDA connected to lasik?
Obviously you have not seen the deception on their advertising and their interviews.
Now, peacegirl, I think English is your native tongue, in which case you ought to know how endophoric pronouns take their meaning from an antecedent. In this case the pronoun "their" in your reply refers back to the antecedent "FDA" in my question. It may be that you intended to refer to advertising and interviews given by other parties; doctors or clinics or the like; but that's not how English works. Whatever you intended, you were actually saying something about the advertising for and interviews about lasik surgery emanating from the FDA.

I may be wrong, but I am fairly sure the FDA doesn't advertise or give interviews advocating for lasik surgery, nor indeed for any other drugs or therapies. Is it your belief that they do?

Can you cite some examples?
The FDA is suppose to approve procedures that are safe and effective. This procedure has inherent risks that are unacceptable, according to the man who gave the original approval. That should tell you something.
__________________
"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell

"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
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 10-11-2016, 11:50 PM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVCXLVII
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

Iffy therapies not given thumbs up by the FDA:

Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (10-12-2016), ChuckF (10-12-2016), livius drusus (10-12-2016), Stephen Maturin (10-12-2016), Stormlight (10-13-2016), The Man (10-12-2016), Vivisectus (10-12-2016)
  #41  
Old 10-12-2016, 01:00 AM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVCXLVII
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

More iffy alt-"med" "therapies":

Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
ChuckF (10-12-2016), livius drusus (10-12-2016), Stephen Maturin (10-12-2016), Stormlight (10-13-2016), The Man (10-12-2016), Vivisectus (10-12-2016)
  #42  
Old 10-12-2016, 02:43 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCLXXXVI
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post

That thread is history so stop bringing it up.
We can only hope that you will let it rest in obscurity, as it deserves.
Lessans was wrong
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you donít know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 10-12-2016, 04:07 AM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMDXXIII
Images: 2
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

LASIK is a procedure performed directly on the brain. (The eyes are part of the brain. You cannot separate the two.) The FDA and advertisers would have you believe that LASIK uses a laser to reshape the cornea, which refracts light entering the eye from the environment and produces an inverted image which then strikes the retina, where chemical and electrical processes trigger nerve impulses to the brain. This is not correct - the LASIK strikes the brain directly.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
aarp (10-12-2016), Adam (10-12-2016), Angakuk (10-12-2016), But (10-12-2016), livius drusus (10-12-2016), Pan Narrans (10-12-2016), Stormlight (10-13-2016), The Man (10-12-2016), Vivisectus (10-12-2016)
  #44  
Old 10-12-2016, 04:51 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCLXXXVI
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
LASIK is a procedure performed directly on the brain. (The eyes are part of the brain. You cannot separate the two.) The FDA and advertisers would have you believe that LASIK uses a laser to reshape the cornea, which refracts light entering the eye from the environment and produces an inverted image which then strikes the retina, where chemical and electrical processes trigger nerve impulses to the brain. This is not correct - the LASIK strikes the brain directly.
I'm wondering how the Lasik process can strike the brain directly, and not the eye. Given that the eye is connected directly to the brain through the optic nerve, but there is quite a bit of opaque material between the eye and the brain, which would block any light from the laser from reaching the brain directly. Just how is that possible?
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you donít know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 10-12-2016, 08:20 AM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCXXV
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Can you share the information on which you base your assertion that the FDA is hiding information about potential complications from prospective patients on?

I am not exactly au courant on American goverment institutions, but is it even their job to inform patients? Is it not their job to make sure treatments meet certain standards, and is it not up to the referring MD to go into the risks?

According to their own website:

Quote:
Your doctor should perform a thorough eye exam and discuss:

whether you are a good candidate
what the risks, benefits, and alternatives of the surgery are
what you should expect before, during, and after surgery
what your responsibilities will be before, during, and after surgery

You should have the opportunity to ask your doctor questions during this discussion. Give yourself plenty of time to think about the risk/benefit discussion, to review any informational literature provided by your doctor, and to have any additional questions answered by your doctor before deciding to go through with surgery and before signing the informed consent form.
Seems they are taking the trouble to get people to properly inform themselves quite thoroughly.
Most of the information given by doctors tells the patient lies. They say the dry eyes and halos are temporary, which they are not in most cases. They also give false statistics saying the success rate is 95% which is another lie based on the satisfaction rate on questionnaires. The lifelong pain and dissatisfaction over this elective surgery speaks for itself. It is more like 20 to 30%, not 5% of dissatisfied patients who only wished they were given the true risks involved. Scary considering these are our only set of eyes. The results cannot be undone.
That is so much opinion - I was asking for the facts that underpin that opinion.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
aarp (10-12-2016), Angakuk (10-12-2016), The Man (10-12-2016)
  #46  
Old 10-12-2016, 12:31 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Can you share the information on which you base your assertion that the FDA is hiding information about potential complications from prospective patients on?

I am not exactly au courant on American goverment institutions, but is it even their job to inform patients? Is it not their job to make sure treatments meet certain standards, and is it not up to the referring MD to go into the risks?

According to their own website:

Quote:
Your doctor should perform a thorough eye exam and discuss:

whether you are a good candidate
what the risks, benefits, and alternatives of the surgery are
what you should expect before, during, and after surgery
what your responsibilities will be before, during, and after surgery

You should have the opportunity to ask your doctor questions during this discussion. Give yourself plenty of time to think about the risk/benefit discussion, to review any informational literature provided by your doctor, and to have any additional questions answered by your doctor before deciding to go through with surgery and before signing the informed consent form.
Seems they are taking the trouble to get people to properly inform themselves quite thoroughly.
Most of the information given by doctors tells the patient lies. They say the dry eyes and halos are temporary, which they are not in most cases. They also give false statistics saying the success rate is 95% which is another lie based on the satisfaction rate on questionnaires. The lifelong pain and dissatisfaction over this elective surgery speaks for itself. It is more like 20 to 30%, not 5% of dissatisfied patients who only wished they were given the true risks involved. Scary considering these are our only set of eyes. The results cannot be undone.
That is so much opinion - I was asking for the facts that underpin that opinion.
Where is this opinion? Are you referring to the number of eyes damaged, or the actual complications that are occurring?
__________________
"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell

"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
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 10-12-2016, 01:35 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCXXV
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Can you share the information on which you base your assertion that the FDA is hiding information about potential complications from prospective patients on?

I am not exactly au courant on American goverment institutions, but is it even their job to inform patients? Is it not their job to make sure treatments meet certain standards, and is it not up to the referring MD to go into the risks?

According to their own website:

Quote:
Your doctor should perform a thorough eye exam and discuss:

whether you are a good candidate
what the risks, benefits, and alternatives of the surgery are
what you should expect before, during, and after surgery
what your responsibilities will be before, during, and after surgery

You should have the opportunity to ask your doctor questions during this discussion. Give yourself plenty of time to think about the risk/benefit discussion, to review any informational literature provided by your doctor, and to have any additional questions answered by your doctor before deciding to go through with surgery and before signing the informed consent form.
Seems they are taking the trouble to get people to properly inform themselves quite thoroughly.
Most of the information given by doctors tells the patient lies. They say the dry eyes and halos are temporary, which they are not in most cases. They also give false statistics saying the success rate is 95% which is another lie based on the satisfaction rate on questionnaires. The lifelong pain and dissatisfaction over this elective surgery speaks for itself. It is more like 20 to 30%, not 5% of dissatisfied patients who only wished they were given the true risks involved. Scary considering these are our only set of eyes. The results cannot be undone.
That is so much opinion - I was asking for the facts that underpin that opinion.
Where is this opinion? Are you referring to the number of eyes damaged, or the actual complications that are occurring?
I am asking what facts you base your opinion on. It is not a very complicated question. You are bandying percentages about - where do they come from?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
aarp (10-12-2016), Angakuk (10-12-2016), The Man (10-12-2016)
  #48  
Old 10-12-2016, 01:37 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCXXV
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
LASIK is a procedure performed directly on the brain. (The eyes are part of the brain. You cannot separate the two.) The FDA and advertisers would have you believe that LASIK uses a laser to reshape the cornea, which refracts light entering the eye from the environment and produces an inverted image which then strikes the retina, where chemical and electrical processes trigger nerve impulses to the brain. This is not correct - the LASIK strikes the brain directly.
And when it does so, it changes the word-slides we project on to undeniable essence so that we see more clearly. Which is amazing as apparently we can do that just by changing the shape of the lens in the eye!
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
aarp (10-12-2016), Angakuk (10-12-2016), But (10-12-2016), ChuckF (10-12-2016), The Man (10-12-2016)
  #49  
Old 10-12-2016, 01:44 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Can you share the information on which you base your assertion that the FDA is hiding information about potential complications from prospective patients on?

I am not exactly au courant on American goverment institutions, but is it even their job to inform patients? Is it not their job to make sure treatments meet certain standards, and is it not up to the referring MD to go into the risks?

According to their own website:

Quote:
Your doctor should perform a thorough eye exam and discuss:

whether you are a good candidate
what the risks, benefits, and alternatives of the surgery are
what you should expect before, during, and after surgery
what your responsibilities will be before, during, and after surgery

You should have the opportunity to ask your doctor questions during this discussion. Give yourself plenty of time to think about the risk/benefit discussion, to review any informational literature provided by your doctor, and to have any additional questions answered by your doctor before deciding to go through with surgery and before signing the informed consent form.
Seems they are taking the trouble to get people to properly inform themselves quite thoroughly.
Most of the information given by doctors tells the patient lies. They say the dry eyes and halos are temporary, which they are not in most cases. They also give false statistics saying the success rate is 95% which is another lie based on the satisfaction rate on questionnaires. The lifelong pain and dissatisfaction over this elective surgery speaks for itself. It is more like 20 to 30%, not 5% of dissatisfied patients who only wished they were given the true risks involved. Scary considering these are our only set of eyes. The results cannot be undone.
That is so much opinion - I was asking for the facts that underpin that opinion.
Where is this opinion? Are you referring to the number of eyes damaged, or the actual complications that are occurring?
I am asking what facts you base your opinion on. It is not a very complicated question. You are bandying percentages about - where do they come from?
I am very upset by the lack of disclosure. My only reason for starting this thread is an effort to help people understand the risks involved before signing the dotted line. There are other questionable practices by the FDA (vaccine approval which we've gone over). LASIK surgery is another egregious move by the FDA to continue to make light of the life changing complications that could occur. Whether this was purposely done or not is irrelavent at this point. What is most urgent is that this deception stops! This is not someone selling a Kirby vacuum cleaner. We're talking about our most precious eyes that we're playing around with. There's no justification that could ever clear the FDA of their complacency on this issue. If they won't ban this procedure they must give a black box warning of the dangers, which is NOT provided. It's already too late for many unsuspecting consumers. :sad:

Laser eye surgery and chronic pain | Mosaic

LASIK Newswire
__________________
"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell

"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 03:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 10-12-2016, 04:00 PM
Angakuk's Avatar
Angakuk Angakuk is offline
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCCLXXXIII
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

peacegirl could give lessons to both Clinton and Trump on how to pivot.
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful. :shakebible:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Stephen Maturin (10-12-2016), The Man (10-12-2016)
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Public Baths > Lifestyle


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.34030 seconds with 13 queries