The LASIK industry & the FDA have conspired since LASIK's inception to purposely withhold information vital to the public in making a truly informed LASIK decision. With Lasikdecision.com, The hope is to show you what the industry and FDA would not and did not even think of doing until LASIK casualties started speaking out, and yet, they still did NOTHING.
Questionable Individuals/Organizations
Quackwatch.org - 'Dr.' Stephen Barrett PDF Print E-mail
Monday, 31 December 2007 00:00

www.quackwatch.org - Listed here because although I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion, promotion of relatives and posting biased information is not ethical. Of all of the LASIK doctors out there, the below listed were the only ones on Barrett's site.

http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/rk.html, http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/eyequack.html, http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/glaucomadrops.html

Stephen Barrett, brother-in-law and uncle of the doctors who sued me to shut down my website has involved himself in my litigation, and has even taken a personal interest in going through my site along with (at the same times) the doctors and their lawyers. Barrett, as consumer advocate Tim Bolen claims, "...who himself has been involved in countless defamation lawsuits". Seems the "do as I say, not as I do" approach works for some people, and of course some people ARE entitled to their opinion...

Barrett's Involvement in my affairs

I did not know the extent of how much Barrett had in fact involved himself until November 22, 2010, when Paul Levy of Public Citizen submitted an affidavit in a recently filed lawsuit by me again against the Nevyases, this time for reverse domain name hijacking provisions of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (see filing).

An excerpt from Mr. Levy's Affidavit:

I knew Barrett because, when we agreed to represent Morgan in the Pennsylvania appeal because of its free speech implications (and regardless of the merits of the libel claims), Barrett expressed great bitterness about Morgan's accusations against the Nevyases and tried to persuade a doctor whom he knew, and who is a senior manager at Public Citizen, to prevent me from defending Morgan's free speech rights. Barrett revealed at that time that Herbert Nevyas was his in-law.

In addition to responding to Barrett's information request, I told him that I had learned about his in-laws' new proceeding against Morgan under the UDRP.

I warned Barrett that winning in the UDRP could be an expensive proposition for his in-laws, because we were willing to represent Morgan pro bono in a declaratory judgment action seeking to vindicate his right to free speech using the domain names, and that the Nevyases were unlikely to succeed in the federal court proceeding because of the wealth of appellate precedent against them under the trademark laws.

I suggested that he warn his relatives about these facts so that they could consider withdrawing the UDRP complaint before was too late. Rather, I suggested, they should just pursue their libel claims if they felt they had a valid case. During the exchange, Barrett revealed that he was still bitter about Morgan's statements about his in-laws and about my representation of Morgan.

Barrett told me that because his in-laws were wealthy, the cost of legal was proceedings was no object. He said they felt very strongly about Morgan's accusations and were not going to relent.

Nevyases Had Barrett Contact Their Lawyer in the Federal Action

As but one example, consider complainants’ exhibit B, a July 16, 2010 letter to Alexis Arena from Stephen Barrett,  MD, explained below:

Further thoughts re Nevyas/Morgan Page 1 of 2

Arena, Alexis
From: Stephen Barrett, M.D. [sbinfo@quackwatch.org]
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 1:32 PM
To: Arena, Alexis

Subject: Further thoughts re Nevyas/Morgan

On further reflection, I recall that Morgan phoned me, during which time I explained to him that if he continued to do what he was doing, he would be sued for libel. I think I advised him that there is a difference between reporting that he had a bad experience and making vicious or inaccurate statements about a named person. I don't recall the exact words, but he made it clear that his intention was to put the Nevyas's out of business.

Barrett's Prior Involvement

In 2003 University of Cincinatti Law Professor James O’Reilly contacted me and asked me to post, on my website, his article on legal and regulatory problems involving LASIK eye surgery,
and I agreed. After the Nevyases sued me, I asked professor O’Reilly to re-evaluate my website. He did, and prepared a declaration, which I posted online.
Stephen Barrett, MD then contacted professor O’Reilly, touted “Quackwatch”  and, without revealing his marriage to Herbert Nevyas’ sister, castigated me, praised Herbert Nevyas, and asked professor O’Reilly to withdraw his declaration (emphasis added):

From: Stephen Barrett, M.D.
To: james.oreilly@
Sent: 12/31/2003 10:12 AM...
Dear Professor O'Reilly
I am writing in response to your declaration at http://www.lasiksucks4u.com/OReillydecl.htm.
I have followed the LASIK situation very carefully because I write a college textbook that helps people learn how to make intelligent decisions about health matters.... About two months ago, Mr. Morgan notified me that he had created his site and expressed concern that I had an article by Dr. Nevyas on Quackwatch. (The article was prepared for my textbook.).... You seem to be under the impression that the purpose of the site is to warn people about the potential dangers of LASIK surgery and that it provides an appropriate warning. However, it seems to me that the primary purpose of the site is to put Dr. Herbert Nevyas and his daughter Anita Nevyas‑Wallace, MD (who operated on Mr. Morgan) out of business..... Dr. Herbert Nevyas is probably the most respected eye surgeon in Philadelphia.... At the very least, you should withdraw your declaration....
Stephen Barrett, M.D.
Board Chairman, Quackwatch, Inc.
NCAHF Vice President and Director of Internet Operations
P.O. Box 1747, Allentown, PA 18105
Telephone: (610) 437‑1795

Professor O'Reilly investigated. He learned that Herbert Nevyas never did Lasik at any hospital, had ceased all hospital operations for over ten years, operated only in his own outpatient surgicenter, and advertised extensively. His operations were not subject to any peer review except by his wife (who never had an ophthalmology residency but was apprenticeship-trained by her husband). In turn, Herbert Nevyas did the “peer review” of his wife and daughter. This arrangement satisfied the law mandating peer review of outpatient surgicenters, but it also indicated that Dr. Barrett’s “college textbook that helps people learn how to make intelligent decisions about health matters” did not value peer review. In preaching the virtues of “probably the most respected eye surgeon in Philadelphia” to young college students in Allentown, a city merely 54 miles from Philadelphia (Rand-McNally), Dr. Barrett knowingly promoted a medical entrepreneur.
Professor O'Reilly decided that his declaration should not be withdrawn.

Dr. Barrett, after seven years and “further reflection,” and still without revealing that he is married to Herbert Nevyas’ sister, now writes Alexis Arena to purport, “I don’t recall the exact words, but he made it clear that his intention was to put the Nevyas’s out of business.”

My opinion is that Barrett's credibility, to say the least, would seem quite questionable!

On March 24, 2009 The Power Hour interviewed a guest who spoke very highly of Barrett (sarcasm implied). Listen to the podcast as I thought it highly factual and to some could be quite enjoyable.

2001

http://www.vaccinationnews.com/DailyNews/July2001/QuackwatchLawsuitFiled.htm

2002

http://www.iahf.com/antiquackbusters/20020105a.html

http://www.state.il.us/COURT/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2003/2ndDistrict/October/Html/2020886.htm

2005

"Our interviews with jurors also revealed that they too saw through Barrett and felt that he was a litigious, ungrounded and biased denier of the truth. Barrett has been a gadfly, [a] thorn in the side of new ideas in health for over 30 years. He has cost untoward numbers of consumers pain, anguish and probably serious harm by his misrepresentation of the facts about subjects as diverse as acupuncture and zinc. It is time that his activities see the light of day under objective scrutiny. Because once they're seen for what they are, they will have no more impact."

"There are a number of pending financial judgments against Barrett that we are urging their attorneys to step forward and collect. There are a number of alternative health care professionals that we are urging to take action against Barrett. There are a number of consumers that we are urging [to] step forward and join the fray. Our objective is to eliminate the false and misleading information from Barrett's website and his entire network of websites and replace it with sound, useful information for consumers."

http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/23/25/18.html

Do As I Say, Not As I Do

SOURCE

IRB Mischief

Some research-related schemes involve networks of practitioners, manufacturers, and others who hope that "research" claims will enable them to ward off government regulatory action and protect them from suits by dissatisfied customers. Some even set up (or pretend to set up) institutional review boards (IRBs) to oversee what they do. Such schemes can be difficult to investigate because IRBs are not usually required to publicly disclose their membership or activities. However, court cases and Internet postings sometimes bring their wrongdoing to light. A few years ago, for example, the American Association of Acupuncture and Bioenergetic Medicine told prospective members:

Ready access for the medical health care provider to AAABEM's Institutional Review Board (IRB), which can oversee each doctor's research protocol, thereby reducing the risks of adopting protocols which would be contrary to FDA regulation. The IRB can provide some protection for members from medical boards as well [10].

Over the years, I have encountered schemes in which IRBs (a) did not hold meetings, (b) did not properly review studies, (c) violated conflict-of-interest rules, (d) did not ensure that patients gave informed consent, and/or (e) were associated with illegally marketed medical devices. I have seen no evidence that IRB-related schemes actually protect the providers who participate. However, their consent forms and other trappings could persuade patients that bogus offerings are legitimate.

The consent forms used in IRB-related schemes typically include a liability waiver. Such waivers would not hold up in court because public policy does not permit people to sign away their right to be protected from fraud and negligence. In addition, federal regulations prohibit exculpatory language through which the subject or representative waives any legal rights or releases the investigator, the sponsor, the institution, or its agents from liability for negligence [11]. However, people who sign these waivers might fail to seek damages or report wrongdoing because they believe that they have signed away their right to do so.

The most notorious IRB was operated by the Great Lakes College of Clinical Medicine (GLCCM), which, in 2001, changed its name to the International College of Integrative Medicine. Documents posted to the Citizens for Responsible Care and Research (CIRCARE) Web site chronicle how at least 17 doctors associated with GLCCM have faced regulatory action [12] and that GLCCM's IRB shut down in 2001 after the FDA demanded compliance with its patient-protection rules [13].

It was OK for Herbert Nevyas, Barrett's Brother-In-Law, to use an IRB for his Investigational study. Hmmm...

 
Christopher Roiland Ragnar PDF Print E-mail
Friday, 15 June 2007 13:28

This individual has spent a number of years harassing LASIK casualties on newsgroups (such as alt-lasik.eyes) and various forums. It seems a person of no degree can spit medical advice as if he was a Harvard graduate, however, next time 'Ragnar' offers his medical input, kindly remind him he is of no position to do so.

Unless of course he received his degree while incarcerated...

 
LasikTruth.org PDF Print E-mail
Sunday, 04 March 2007 11:00

www.lasiktruth.org - This website appears to be another marketing strategy to downplay the experiences of true LASIK casualties.

Quote:

"We are all familiar with lawyers' ads on radio, TV and newspapers that offer their services if we have been injured. This is an example of expensive types of advertisements. Now lawyers have found a very cheap, effective and dishonest way to advertise by highlighting LASIK complications as a method to recruit clients. These sites claim to be honest sites created by LASIK patients who have had complicated LASIK surgery and the site warns people, thus protecting the public. However these sites are totally bogus. The sites are characterized by 100 percent rambling of complaints. The false message is that maybe LASIK is unsafe. These sites are "optimized" so that they appear on the first pages of major search engines."

A majority of the websites are NOT "bogus"! Most of the LINKS provided on my site belong to TRUE LASIK patients who have been damaged!

If you go beyond the home page of this 'website', it's all ads... Nice way to make money, I guess...