Ex-FDA Chief, Dr. Morris Waxler, states that "LASIK MAKES HEALTHY EYES SICK AND DISEASED FOR LIFE." LASIK irreversible eye reshaping surgery has been marketed in a deceptive way stating: "There are no known long term damages." Yet, there have always been "known-long-term damages." Dr. Waxler has requested a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION into those responsible for possibly "COOKING THE LASIK SAFETY STUDIES." This is our cause...
Friday, August 9, 2013
TODAY THE LASIK INDUSTRY WILL BE TURNED UPSIDE DOWN...
THE LASIK INDUSTRY WILL BE TURNED UPSIDE DOWN!
IRS INVESTIGATION WILL BE INTO THE DIRECTORS AND COMMISSIONERS AT THE
FDA, ASCRS, AND THE LIASONS REPRESENTING
THE LASER MANUFACTURERS WHO CONTINUE TO FALSIFY ("COOK")SENSITIVE
a surgical procedure being performed for cosmetic reasons and patient
convenience on a healthy organ critical to our ability to function.
Considering that this surgery neither treats nor prevents disease, what is
the acceptable rate of serious and permanent complications? Shouldn't it be
zero? How can we even
consider a rate greater than those of vaccinations that, while also given
to healthy people, provide invaluable disease-prevention benefits?
LASIK/PRK laser surgeries do not.
it been possible that disastrous permanent complications of these surgeries
have been ignored by the FDA? In this context, I have a confession to make.
Despite my being aware of the many blinding complications of this surgery, having treated many of these patients
at the Boston Foundation for Sight (which I founded), like my colleagues, I
failed to act on my observations that a surgical procedure performed for
non-medical reasons and that has been proven to have disastrous
consequences in some, would be sanctioned by the
I did nothing until I became aware of a complication that had
not been previously reported; suicide-provoking pain that
is long-lasting and probably life-long. Why had
this devastating complication not been reported in the past? I assumed that
eye doctors had been misled because these eyes typically look normal and
well healed. Moreover, we have been trained to believe that the cause of
chronic eye pain can always be identified during traditional examinations
and that if nothing is found to explain it, the pain must exist only in the
minds of these patients. Moreover,
as I discovered, the onset of this type of pain often occurs years after
the surgery and their connection is easily dismissed. I thought that these
factors probably accounted for its having being overlooked. I was wrong.
I did detailed examinations on 21 such
patients and wrote a paper detailing the characteristics of this pain
disease (corneal neuropathic centralized pain) in this group in which I
explained why it differs from typical temporary post operative pain. I
offered my theory about its mechanisms and included suggestions on how it
might be possibly prevented or reduced.
As I began to read the history of LASIK and its complications
I became aware of the central role of the FDA in sanctioning these
procedures. However, a cursory look at the results of search
engines provided a day's read. Where is the shame?
So I sent my paper to the FDA as
documentation of this previously unreported complication despite
warned that they will not respond. I didn't believe it.
I was wrong. I sent it twice without
the courtesy of an acknowledgement. Of course they could always say that
the paper has no standing because it was rejected.
I would never have imagined that editors of scientific
peer-reviewed journals, a for profit manufacturing/marketing industry and,
in some cases, even practicing doctors would collaborate to hide these
complications from the public and prospective patients. And what about the
government agency whose primary responsibility is to protect the public
"Because of the infrequency of this complication, it
take more than 15 years at an incredible cost to perform the studies
they insisted would be needed by other journals.
(They stated that they had
no interest in looking at it again.) In other words their suggestions were
I was confused. So I sent the paper to
world-class pain researchers for their opinions. All supported its being
published. (One called my work "transformative".) Notably, both
journals ignored my suggestion that at least one of the reviewers be an
expert in pain. I began to wonder if they had a
hidden agenda. Was I becoming paranoid? I have
been accused as having an over-abundance of naivety.