Exposing the LASIK Scam

One Surgeon at a Time
It is currently Mon Aug 19, 2019 1:30 am

All times are UTC

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Dr. William Trattler censored research articles/FDA data #1
PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 5:23 pm 

Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:28 pm
Posts: 643
Dr. Bill Trattler said:
>When patients have
>a question about one topic -
>you immediately try to spread fear
>by saying things like: "Bulldog, what
>is your residual stromal thickness? Unless
>you know the answer, you don't
>know whether your eyes are healthy."

Eye replied:
Scare tactics? Residual stromal thickness and eye health are unrelated? If you get ectasia, is that healthy? Why would you, as a doctor, NOT want patients to know their residual stromal thickness? What if they regress and try to go have an enhancement? They don't need to know their residual stromal thickness? Is it not in the patient's best interest to be armed with facts?

Dr. Bill Trattler said:
>You are providing flat out lies: The
>person named Eye said: "The
>current maximum possible size for a
>full treatment zone for lasers approved
>in the US is 6.5 mm."

>Ladarvision can be programmed to an 8.0mm
>optical zone - and this has
>been present since 1999 or so.

>As well - VISX Customvue can be
>programmed to an optical zone of
>8.0mm if needed/desired.

Eye replied...
I stand by my statement until I see an approval order for an optical zone larger than 6.5 mm. I said APPROVED in the US. Not capable of being programmed, but APPROVED for use in LASIK in the US. Please name one LASER that is APPROVED for an optical zone larger than 6.5 mm in the United States.

There is a reason these lasers are not approved for an optical zone larger than 6.5 mm for LASIK. The reason is to prevent ectasia.

The use of a laser in the US for an optical zone larger than 6.5 mm would be an off label use of this laser.

You must know this, and you called ME a liar! There is a big difference between a laser that is programmable for a certain size treatment zone and what size treatment zone is actually approved by the FDA. This seems like an example of a refractive surgeon using semantics to deceive patients. I can't believe you did this.

Once again, "Can be programmed" and "is approved" are two different things.

Why would you accuse me of lying and deceiving people, and say something so deceptive yourself? Nobody wants patients to be helped more than previously damaged patients, and you're not helping if you're preventing patients from being fully informed.

So, for the record... 6.5 mm is the maximum size optical zone APROVED in the US. I'm not talking about blend or transition zones which may extend further, as you know.

If you have news of a recent approval for an optical zone larger than this, I was simply unaware of this recent development... NOT LYING. Please let patients know immediately of any such approval.

"Can be programmed".... hhhrrrupmh! Shame on you!

 Post subject: Dr. William Trattler censored research articles/FDA data #2
PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 5:26 pm 

Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:28 pm
Posts: 643
Dr. Bill Trattler said:
>Another false claim: You state: Regular LASIK
>increases HOAs even more than wavefront,
>but wavefront destroys more precious corneal
>tissue, leaving you with a thinner
>cornea over a wider area.

>In actuality - with the VISX laser
>- Customvue removes about the same
>amount of tissue per diopter as
>standard treatment (6.5 OZ with blend)

Eye replied:
Oh, I see... VISX is the only company that hasn't figured out that you need to maintain the prolate shape of the cornea yet. Who is using THIS laser on patients????

Strangely VISX also collected post-op contrast sensitivity data but failed to report it in their PMA (for patients reading... this is the data from clinical trials that is submitted for approval). Isn't it odd that the FDA let this PMA slide through anyway?

Then there is the odd fact that VISX left out over 70% of their clinical outcomes from the PMA.

From the full text:
"...the refractive outcomes for >70% of the study population are not reported."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... query_hl=1

J Refract Surg. 2004 Sep-Oct;20(5):S588-92.

Understanding pre-market approval and labeling differences of two leading customized ablation platforms: a call for reform at the FDA.

Wachler BS, Hiatt JA.
Boxer Wachler Vision Institute, Beverly Hills, CA 90210, USA. bbw@boxerwachler.com

Bill Trattler said:
>An additional false claim is the way
>you answer why 29% of refractive
>surgeons have previously undergone LASIK.
>You state: "Ace, the most damaging
>research about refractive surgery consequences has
>come out fairly recently.Can you find
>a LASIK surgeon who had LASIK
>within the past year?

Eye replied:
Actually I asked a question. No false claims whatsoever.

Bill Trattler said:
>Again - you have are making up
>statements - and in reality this
>is just your way of trying
>to put a negative spin on
>a known fact - and you
>are flat out wrong.

Eye said:
Again, I was asking a question. I think it's a good one.

Dr. Bill Trattler said:
> To answer this question - A LASIK
>surgeon in Ft. Lauderdale (who I
>am good freind with) had LASIK
>5 months ago. As well, I
>know plenty of LASIK surgeons who
>have operated on family members in
>the last year.

Eye replied:
Perhaps a 'LASIK surgeon' still does LASIK on the general public and did a surface treatment on a relative in the past year... but do you know a refractive surgeon who has performed LASIK on a relative in the past year? Or had LASIK themselves? You claim to know ONE, and it is indeed possible, of course.

I would question the judgement of any refractive surgeon who had LASIK on themselves or performed LASIK on a relative RECENTLY, however. Perhaps if they read your website this could have been prevented. There is a reason why you don't perform LASIK any longer, correct?

Dr. Bill Trattler said:
> Finally - I know plenty of employees in
>offices who perform LASIK who have
>undergone their own refractive surgery in
>the last 18 months. And
>they see all of the good
>and all of the bad with
>refractive surgery.

Eye replied:
Semantics again. The offices may perform LASIK, but is this the treatment they would suggest for their employees? Do you know plenty of LASIK offices that have done LASIK on their employees RECENTLY? Do you think this practice has declined, or is declining?

By the way... the only employee who had LASIK in the first office where I was seen could no longer drive at night. The only employee in the 2nd office where I was seen who had LASIK had dry eye and floaters as a result of the procedure. The 2nd
technician has moved on, and the first one seems fairly conflicted about her job.

The history of medicine is full of bad practices that have been stopped. Because certain surgeries were routine at one time or are still being performed here and there doesn't make them medically sound or healthful. Know any surgeons who have had RK lately?

Dr. Tratller said:
>But - the main reason you are
>being kindly asked to move on
>to a discussion group is because
>of your tone.

Eye replied:
I think the main reason I'm being asked to move on is that I'm pretty much on target, armed with information from the FDA and the medical literature, and I'm arming other patients with information. My tone was never negative. You must be thinking of Vic and Bryce.

There are damaged patients, who, like me, make themselves available 24/7 to talk with patients damaged by refractive surgery who are freaking out and suicidal. Who spend their spare time poring over medical literature and boring FDA Opthalmic devices panel transcripts so that they can be better informed. Who are upset that most patients don't know they'll have nerve damage from LASIK, or that their corneal integrity is never restored.

Will you help us tell the truth? I know you used to claim that pupil size wasn't a factor in refractive surgery outcomes and have since changed your mind. I know you've stopped doing LASIK.

Was I wrong to think that you'd be truthful?

If I make a mistake about something, I'd like to know and see the evidence. I want to get it right.

I'm no liar Bill.

 Post subject: Re: Dr. William Trattler censored research articles/FDA data
PostPosted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 8:36 am 

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 10:01 pm
Posts: 12
Eye wrote:
To Dr Trattler
Was I wrong to think that you'd be truthful?

If you expect the truth out of Trattler, you will be waiting a very long time.

IN my opinion, Trattler should not be trusted any further than you can throw him. Thank you EYE for exposing this liar to the world. My experience with him revealed him to be a fraud who is acting only in his own self interest. He claims to be an advocate for the injured, but he is nothing but a perpetrator! Avoid him like the plague.

 Post subject: Basis for mistrust?
PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 1:18 am 

Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 7:17 pm
Posts: 161
IN my opinion, Trattler should not be trusted any further than you can throw him.

Hi Totally. What did Trattler promise you that wasn't delivered?

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 

All times are UTC

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits