A D V E R T I S E M E N T
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
To the editor: I discovered a link to your article, “Shuttered Sight, Shattered Lives” (Feb. 20, 2003) in Fort Worth Weekly while visiting the web site www.surgicaleyes.org. Thank you for exposing this destructive junk surgery. The public needs to know LASIK is refractive surgery’s “Enron.”
About four years ago I fell for the hype and misleading advertising concerning this procedure. I heard a doctor on television extolling the benefits of LASIK, went to a free consultation, and seven days later had the procedure. LASIK has been the biggest mistake of my life. While I can see, all the quality aspects of my vision have been ruined. My vision is no longer crisp and clear, and I can no longer read effectively for any meaningful length of time. Driving at night is a nightmare, and I suffer from burning and stinging eyes.
This surgery was portrayed to me as being easy and essentially risk-free. Nothing is further from the truth. I now know problems are quite common.I’ve been reading industry magazines, articles, and journals about this surgery for years. I am now convinced this surgery just doesn’t work well enough to be performed on humans. LASIK is truly a threat to our public’s health. Thousands upon thousands have been harmed by this surgery. With the invention of the internet, I know of people in my neighborhood with tragic outcomes.
You may not know it, but with your article you saved a whole bunch of Texans’ lives. Thanks again for having the courage to write such an article.
To the editor: In reading your lead article “Shattered Sight, Shattered Lives,” I feel that I must comment. On balance, I thought it was an excellent article. I might have given a few more words to the idea that the overwhelming majority of patients that undergo LASIK have diligent pre-operative workups and successful surgeries. However, I firmly believe in what Wendy Sunshine was saying. I, too, have been very uncomfortable with the media advertising message concerning LASIK, and Dr. Anderson is correct:There are no minor surgeries.
Only one part of the article gives me concern. I have known and worked with Wes Herman, M.D., for almost 18 years, and I believe that he is one of the best surgeons in this state. I am very familiar with the details of the case mentioned that involves Dr. Herman, and I do not see this case in the same light. This case involved trying to improve an already bad refractive surgery outcome performed by another surgeon in another state. I do not equate this case with the overall problem of some bad actors not doing proper pre-operative workups and disclosure and downright fraudulent advertising. Part of the reason I have referred some of my refractive surgery patients to Dr. Herman is that he does not advertise in this manner. Wes Herman is a quality person and surgeon, and I have put my brother and my mother where my mouth is. Remember, I can send my family anywhere, and I sent them to Dr. Herman.
Clarke D. Newman, OD, FAAO
Saenz are Good
To the editor: Arriba! Gracias for the “Saenz of the Times” (Feb. 13, 2003) article about some of the coolest (although poco obscure) Real Texas music and one of the coolest music families. Not a coincidence for the Saenzes to be exposed by a similarly cool, poco obscure Fort Worth and Fort Worth Weekly. Proves to me that the best-kept secrets in the music world are often found in Cowtown.
Thanks and congratulations on a great article and publication.
Justice, Not Vendetta
To the editor: Our office handled Chad Houston’s case (Letters, Feb. 27, 2003) in a responsible and professional manner. The simple fact remains that not one, but two different grand juries heard the facts surrounding Chad Houston’s death. In both instances the grand jury declined to return an indictment. Sometimes, facts do not warrant criminal action because, simply put, no crime occurred. The Houston family does not accept this outcome. However, it would contravene our duty to see that justice is done if we prosecuted people simply because someone says we should. Every citizen has the right to be heard; however, no citizen should use the criminal justice system to pursue a personal vendetta.
Tarrant County District Attorney’s office
Re-Fighting That War
To the editor: Kristian Lin states in his review of Gods and Generals, (“Wooden Soldiers,” Feb. 27, 2003) that “the movie’s also intellectually fraudulent. Afraid of offending certain segments of its audience, it resorts to that comforting lie that some white Southerners tell themselves, that the war was about states’ rights. The war was about slavery. Any attempt to say otherwise is dishonest.”
That is the most asinine allegation I have read today and I’ve read many. Lincoln was a Union man who didn’t care one whit about the black race. In fact, he wanted to send them back to Africa. He came up with the Emancipation Proclamation as a political ploy to keep England and France from coming to the aid of the Confederate States. By the way, the Emancipation Proclamation only “freed” the slaves in the areas in which Lincoln did not have control. The proclamation did not apply to the northern states where slavery was in existence. It is a real shame that people like you are writing articles in newspapers without researching the history of your subject. All you are doing is spouting incorrect history as written by our left-of-Lenin school systems. Gods and Generals was actual, honest history. I challenge you to go forth and spend some time reading both sides of the story. Then rewrite your article. Oh, the causes of the war? There were five major disputes, of which slavery was one. I like to say that it was just like a marriage. The states got married and after 80 years, it was time for a divorce, as they had nothing in common. They couldn’t even agree on the design of the new capitol in Washington.
Email this Article...