Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post

Knut · 09-30-2010, 09:27 AM

I think listening to Dr.NuclearFart is the smart thing to do here. He obviously is more knowledgeable than the rest on this kind of stuff.

The biggest issue i have with the treatment is that all the results are Anecdotal at this point. It is in everyones best interest that we do our due-diligence to ensure we are not putting patients at unnecessary risk with this procedure. It is not a simple procedure like most of you are saying.

I can relate an eye-related example to this. Radial Keratotomy. Before LASIK and PRK there was a refractive surgery, out of Eastern Europe, shown to correct Near-sightedness. This was Radial Keratotomy (or RK). Basically, you use a blade to make 4 to 8 incisions along the peripheral cornea in order to flatten the cornea (thus correcting near-sightedness). There was excellent anecdotal evidence out of Europe of patients not needing glasses. It was started in North America but stopped a few years later due to patients' eyes creeping more far-sighted and large amount of Astigmatism being induced. Many patients have poorer vision after the procedure than before.

The worry here is that there are no studies trying to determine the long term effects out yet. What if the post-surgical anecdotal evidence is because it lifts people out of a depressed state knowing something could be done ? Depression is shown to increase the symptoms of MS. It would be irresponsible for Canadian Health Care to pay for this until more evidence is shown.

Let me frame this a different way. If a new AIDS medication came out of Europe showing Anecdotal improvements in symptoms of patients and elevated T-cell counts right away, should the Canadian Government rush the funding on it ? Even if we do not know what the long-term effects are ? Or. What the safety profile is like ?

09-30-2010, 09:27 AM	#58
Knut Join Date: Oct 2002 Exp:	I think listening to Dr.NuclearFart is the smart thing to do here. He obviously is more knowledgeable than the rest on this kind of stuff. The biggest issue i have with the treatment is that all the results are Anecdotal at this point. It is in everyones best interest that we do our due-diligence to ensure we are not putting patients at unnecessary risk with this procedure. It is not a simple procedure like most of you are saying. I can relate an eye-related example to this. Radial Keratotomy. Before LASIK and PRK there was a refractive surgery, out of Eastern Europe, shown to correct Near-sightedness. This was Radial Keratotomy (or RK). Basically, you use a blade to make 4 to 8 incisions along the peripheral cornea in order to flatten the cornea (thus correcting near-sightedness). There was excellent anecdotal evidence out of Europe of patients not needing glasses. It was started in North America but stopped a few years later due to patients' eyes creeping more far-sighted and large amount of Astigmatism being induced. Many patients have poorer vision after the procedure than before. The worry here is that there are no studies trying to determine the long term effects out yet. What if the post-surgical anecdotal evidence is because it lifts people out of a depressed state knowing something could be done ? Depression is shown to increase the symptoms of MS. It would be irresponsible for Canadian Health Care to pay for this until more evidence is shown. Let me frame this a different way. If a new AIDS medication came out of Europe showing Anecdotal improvements in symptoms of patients and elevated T-cell counts right away, should the Canadian Government rush the funding on it ? Even if we do not know what the long-term effects are ? Or. What the safety profile is like ?