Posted 9/22/2009

FDA Hearing – April 25, 2008
Presentation of Todd Krouner, Esq.

MR. KROUNER: Good morning again. I am here on behalf of Amanda Campbell. My name is Todd Krouner. I was recently retained by her. She is a widow now in Brentwood, Tennessee, whose husband, Lawrence Campbell, a police officer with that police force, shot himself with his service revolver last month on March 16, 2008. Ms. Campbell regrets that, given her current circumstances, she is not able to afford the trip here to Maryland today.

In a March 25, 2008, article reported in the OSN supersite, Dr. Richard Lindstrom, who you know as President of ASCRS and OSN Chief Medical Editor, is quoted as asserting that there is no correlation whatsoever between adverse LASIK outcomes and suicide. Presumably, Dr. Lindstrom did not have the benefit of reading police officer Campbell’s suicide note.

In my April 15, 2008, written submission to the FDA, I referred to Dr. Lindstrom’s assertion, but in my letter I also questioned the integrity of certain Titans in the LASIK industry, and I want to be clear that none of those comments are meant to cast any such aspersion on Dr. Lindstrom. However, I respectfully disagree with his absolute position based on the explicit statements in police officer Campbell’s suicide note from just last month. He states: “No one knows what I am feeling, constant pain, blurred vision, stress that I never had before. If only Dr. Robert P. Selkin had done a pre-op and knew I was not a candidate for LASIK surgery. “No one understands truly my burden I carry, dry eyes, cannot light a fire, cannot stand in front of air conditioning, cannot cook without opening a window, cannot spray deodorant. The list goes on and on. “I just cannot burden my family for a poor decision, eye surgery, which Selkin knew was wrong but only wanted money, and I will not live on drugs, Xanax. I never used that drug wrong, a half a milligram at night and sparingly in the afternoon on a bad day. I am not a drug user. Never could I do this, as it has ruined so many lives.” He goes on to state, “Do not have LASIK surgery. Tell the media.”

On behalf of the Campbell family, that is why I am here on their behalf today. If there were any question about the cause of police officer Campbell’s suicide, he states explicitly: “To blame for this, Selkin eye surgery. Eye surgery has taken my life out of me. The pain, distorted vision, chronic dry eye is not bearable” — emphasis in original. Out of fairness to Dr. Robert P. Selkin, I do not know today if he committed medical malpractice in the tragic Campbell case. However, out of fairness to Lawrence Campbell’s widow and two children, to date inexplicably they have been denied access to eye records.

What is clear in this case — and I emphasize this one case — is that LASIK surgery clearly constituted a material contributing factor, if not the sole factor, to police officer Campbell’s suicide. To Mrs. Campbell’s knowledge, prior to his LASIK surgery she reports that her husband suffered from no mental illness whatsoever.

Now you have heard today and certainly recognize that LASIK surgery helps the vast majority of patients who have it. For a small minority, their regret is profound. For a smaller minority of patients still, depression associated with their visual disability is real. The association with suicide and bad LASIK outcomes, however rare, cannot be dismissed, and warrants further investigation.

As a final point, I would just like to call the FDA’s attention to its reporting obligations. The FDA’s work should be transparent and readily available to the public. It is not always. Nine months ago, my law firm served a Freedom of Information request to obtain information concerning the Administration’s recall of the Alcon LADARVision 6000. To date, we have still received no substantive response. Vindication of injured patients’ rights depends on timely disclosure of such information. Thank you.

Source: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/08/transcripts/2008-4353t1-02.pdf

Click here to read suicide note – Slide 6, 7 and 8.

Update May 28, 2011: 20/20 Hindsight on Canada’s GlobalTV program 16:9 The Bigger Picture features Larry Campbell’s story as told by his son.

FDA Lasik Response to FDA Webview Challenged

Reprinted with permission from fdaweb.com

09/14/2009

LASIK Surgery Watch says it disputes most of FDA’s response to FDA Webview in our publication of an interview with former FDA Division of Ophthalmic Devices Diagnostic and Surgical Devices Branch chief Morris Waxler, who said that FDA was mistaken in approving excimer lasers for LASIK during his tenure (see story).

In a 9/13 letter to CDRH acting director Jeffrey Shuren and other FDA and HHS officials and members of Congress, LASIK Surgery Watch says that FDA caveats that its guidance documents only provide guidance “in no way exonerate [it] for approving excimer laser devices for LASIK, a procedure with complications in excess of 20%.” The group also asserts that no number of subsequent meetings or revisions to the guidance could justify such damage to American eyes.

On the issue of LASIK re-treatments, LASIK Surgery Watch says that while it agrees with FDA that such re-treatments were never approved by the agency, they still are common and speak to the lack of efficacy of the initial LASIK procedure.

LASIK Surgery Watch also questions FDA’s comments on adverse event reporting in its database. The agency’s emphasis that most reports are not recent only demonstrates that damaged patients have no idea where to report adverse events, it says. It also says that FDA statements about adverse events reported in its own database are incorrect. It says the agency mis-reported the number of voluntary adverse event reports and asks why it is providing misleading data to the public on its own adverse event database.

The remainder of the letter reviews for Shuren all of LASIK Surgery Watch’s concerns about the procedure, including citation of a number of medical journal studies. “LASIK is a medically unnecessary surgery that carries with it permanent adverse effects and substantial risk of permanent visual impairment,” it says. “As evidenced, LASIK complications occur frequently. It is reasonable to conclude that LASIK eye surgery has become a leading cause of preventable visual impairment in the United States.”

The letter calls on Shuren to immediately withdraw FDA approval of LASIK devices.

Meanwhile, a Consumer Reports survey has found that 55% of Americans who had LASIK surgery continue to wear glasses or contact lenses at some time. And many of them say they were misled by advertising for the procedure that led them to expect they would not need other eye correction after surgery.

“Laser vision correction surgery is a largely unchecked industry, and consumers need to know the right questions to ask to be sure they’re protected and that they’re getting good quality care for their money,” says Consumer Reports Health Rating Center director John Santa. “Vision correction surgery is increasingly popular but there is a concerning lack of unbiased, concrete evidence about its safety and efficacy.”

Survey results showed that 53% of patients experienced at least one side effect within the first four weeks after surgery, and 22% experienced them six months after surgery, especially dry eyes and visual symptoms like halos, glare, and starbursts around lights.

Reprinted with permission from fdaweb.com
CDRH to Review 18 ‘Violative’ LASIK Ads
09/11/2009

Responding to a complaint by Florida-based LASIK activist Dean Andrew Kantis, CDRH’s Office of Compliance said 9/11 it would give “appropriate review” to 18 Web site advertisements by LASIK surgery firms that Kantis had gathered and sent to office director Timothy A. Ulatowski. Founder of the Life After LASIK Web network, Kantis said in his transmittal that all of the ads violated Ulatowski’s 5/22 letter to LASIK professionals that set out requirements for LASIK promotions. FDA Webview reviewed four of the ads and determined that none of them complied with the letter, which among other things said such ads should disclose risks associated with the controversial procedure.

Kantis and other activists have been conducting a sustained pressure campaign on FDA’s new leadership to take regulatory action against ambulatory surgical facilities that they say perform LASIK vision-enhancement procedures without required patient informed consent and fair disclosure of permanent injuries that reportedly run as high as 20% of all surgeries. Since their complaints were aired at an open advisory panel meeting last year, CDRH has declined to respond to requests that it initiate inspections of these facilities to ascertain their compliance with MDR reporting requirements.

Last week, former CDRH chief of LASIK reviews Morris Waxler told FDA Webview the agency had “screwed up” in the adverse events it allowed LASIK lasers to cause when it approved this indication in 1998.

In a comment on Kantis’ complaint about the 18 ads, FDA’s Press Office told FDA Webview: “We acknowledge receipt of these ads and will give them appropriate review. Without enough time to review, it is not helpful to speculate on potential regulatory action, nor can we comment on an investigation should we initiate one.”

Meanwhile, FDA’s closure of a public docket it opened last year on LASIK quality-of-life issues occurs 9/14.

Former branch chief for diagnostic and surgical devices alleges the FDA caved under pressure from ophthalmologists to approve LASIK devices, despite high incidence of complications.
Reprinted with permission from fdaweb.com
On LASIK ‘We Screwed Up’ Says Ex-CDRH Review Leader
09/08/2009

When it first approved laser devices for LASIK indications in 1998, CDRH “screwed up” in not establishing a standard for acceptable adverse events reported from clinical studies, former branch chief for diagnostic and surgical devices Morris Waxler told FDA Webview in a teleconference interview 9/3. Instead, FDA set upper limits in each product’s labeling and reference a voluntary guidance issued two years earlier. Joined in the interview by Life After LASIK founder Dean Andrew Kantis, who is conducting a post-operative on-line study of the procedure’s injuries, Waxler said FDA was under enormous industry pressure when it approved the new indication and its standards for the procedure “were cobbled together.”

Primarily, he said, CDRH totally lacked in-house LASIK expertise at the time and incorrectly judged the significance of adverse events, which input from an advisory panel had said should be less than 1% of all procedures. Actual experience was above 5% in permanent adverse events that the agency listed in the wrong column as so-called “second-tier complications” such as patient-reported persistent pain, blurred images and night-vision difficulties that were not counted as first-tier adverse events (retinal detachment, lost visual acuity, induction of astigmatism, etc.).

CDRH has been under mounting pressure as FDA’s most “dysfunctional” Center, and last month its latest director, Daniel G. Schultz, was moved to resign over its worsening problems, most recently to do with allegations about allegedly improper 510(k) clearances and low employee morale.

“I think we screwed up,” Waxler said of the 1998 approvals. “Nobody’s going to admit that. Basically, I think people made some of those judgments incorrectly. We were getting advice from very renowned ophthalmologists — more renowned than anyone we had in the agency. We dropped the ball with regard to enhancements with in excess of 10% retreatment rates because there was a great deal of pressure from individual doctors who said they had the freedom as a physician to re-treat when they felt it was necessary for the sight of the patient. We waffled on that, we collapsed on that issue. In some of the clinical trials we were very tough on particular companies that came in with high re-treatment rates, and none of that got translated into a requirement for all the manufacturers. So I think we screwed up.

“It’s very difficult to get them to admit there’s been an error. I just think that’s not going to happen until there’s such a crisis that they’re forced to do so.”

CDRH continues to refuse to act against the procedure or to conduct inspections at ambulatory surgical facilities to force the issue on non-reporting of LASIK adverse events under MedWatch and MAUDE, Kantis said. “The agency says, ‘Oh, we have no complaints coming in!’ They won’t listen to us.” Eighteen months ago, he said, CDRH had only 246 LASIK adverse events reported, a number that has risen to over 1,500 after mass media publicity around an advisory committee hearing on the issue in April, 2008.

“The agency doesn’t want to have a fight with the ophthalmologists,” Waxler said. “Why not?” demanded Kantis. “They’d feel weak,” Waxler answered.

Until enough patients have been injured to get together and mount a big lawsuit, Waxler observed, “neither the independent ophthalmologists nor the agency is going to stand up and do anything.”

FDA’s response

In a statement issued 9/8 by FDA’s Press Office, the agency said CDRH’s Ophthalmic Devices Division “never had standards stating that adverse events should be less than 1% for all procedures. In its consideration of LASIK applications, CDRH followed the October 10, 1996 guidance entitled ‘Checklist of Information Usually Submitted in an Investigational Device Exemptions (IDE) Application for Refractive Surgery Lasers’.” This guidance contains a section on “Definitions of Major Safety Endpoints and Target Values,” which does say as its fifth point, “Adverse events to occur in less than 1.0% of the population.” However, the guidance lists these “definitions” under a caveat: “endpoints and values are only guidance.”

Less than definitively, FDA’s statement added: “Prior to publication of the guidance document, preliminary drafts were discussed extensively at two public meetings of the Ophthalmic Devices Advisory Panel (7/20/1995 and 4/1/1996). Information from these meetings and input from the Eye Care Technology Forum (ECTF) working group, manufacturers, health care professionals, and consumers, was incorporated into FDA’s final guidance. (Oct 10, 1996). After publication, proposed expansions of the guidance were discussed at two additional public meetings of the Ophthalmic Devices Panel (10/21/97 and 10/22/1998). These discussions resulted in a broad consensus regarding the definition and acceptable levels of occurrence of adverse events in IDE clinical trials for refractive surgery laser systems. These were utilized in the subsequent reviews of LASIK pre-market submissions.”

With regard to Waxler’s comment on retreatments, FDA said it “has not approved retreatment for any LASIK device. Furthermore, FDA’s labeling typically contains the following precaution: ‘It is unknown whether LASIK is safe and effective for retreatment with this laser for LASIK, because it is unknown whether LASIK is safe and effective for repeating the LASIK procedure on the same eye.’

“With regard to the adverse event numbers,” FDA’s statement continued, “preliminary search indicates that subsequent to the 4/25/08 Panel, we received reports of 537 events. However, only 97 of them had a date of the event subsequent to the panel meeting. Only 18 of these were received as voluntary reports.”

The FDA statement responded to Kantis’ comment that “The agency… won’t listen to us” by citing the April, 2008 public advisory panel of outside experts that it convened “to listen to patient experiences with LASIK and consider how to improve information for patients and physicians about LASIK. In response to the feedback from the public and LASIK experts, we have been working on several improvements in our communications with the public regarding LASIK-related safety issues. Our accomplishments to date are listed and frequently updated on our web page entitled ‘Latest on FDA’s LASIK Program’.”

07-21-2009

The American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) held its convention earlier this year in San Francisco.  At the convention LASIK surgeons performed skits making fun of damaged and suicidal LASIK patients. One skit poked fun at patients who complain of halos and glare after refractive surgery.  The skits were published on YouTube by Parag Majmudar.  One of the skits featured Parag Majmudar as “Dr. I. M. Suicidal” singing of “pushing the boundaries of ethics”.

Last week a damaged LASIK patient stumbled upon the ASCRS convention videos on YouTube and sent a link to several other damaged LASIK patients.  The link was forwarded to Jim Dickinson of FDAweb.com.  Mr. Dickinson sent an email to John Ciccone, ASCRS Director of Communications, asking for confirmation that the objectionable videos were indeed from the ASCRS convention.  Mr. Ciccone confirmed that the skits were performed at the ASCRS convention, disavowed the videos, and stated that the videos’ producer would be asked to remove them from YouTube.

Although ASCRS is sorry that the videos were exposed, their apology changes nothing in the minds of damaged LASIK patients who have been trying for years to expose the corrupt LASIK industry for what they truly are  — liars in white coats, performing an unnecessary, harmful surgery and laughing all the way to the bank.

Open Letter to Director Timothy Ulatowski
Posted 7/13/2009

June 27, 2009

Timothy A. Ulatowski, Director
Office of Compliance
Food and Drug Administration
Center for Devices and Radiological Health
9200 Corporate Blvd.
Rockville, MD 20850

Dear Mr. Ulatowski,

The recent FDA warning to consumers regarding Zicam cold products emphasized the seriousness of loss of smell and its effect on quality of life. But for years, the FDA has ignored the pleadings of patients who needlessly suffered visual impairment by LASIK eye surgery devices.

You need only consult readily available information already in FDA databases – for example the FDA Maude database of LASIK-related adverse events to see that LASIK eye surgery is exposing the public to unreasonable risk. There are hundreds of patient reports of chronic, debilitating dry eyes and incapacitating visual impairment after LASIK. Yet the FDA continues to fail to act on these reports by allowing these devices to remain on the market.

Is it the FDA’s position that the sense of smell has a greater impact on quality of life than sight? Can the FDA say that vision is less important to public health and safety than a sense of smell?

The LASIK industry is actively engaged in cover-up of the problems associated with LASIK surgery. The LASIK industry diverts attention away from emerging problems of LASIK such as LASIK-induced dry eye disease and night vision problems by feeding the media statistics about LASIK ‘satisfaction rates’ and patients achieving 20/20 vision for short periods of time after surgery. The LASIK industry doesn’t like to talk about night vision impairment and intractable dry eyes which may be debilitating and permanent after LASIK. The LASIK industry doesn’t want to discuss how poor quality (distorted) 20/20 vision after LASIK can be a waking nightmare for patients with LASIK-induced irregular astigmatism. And only in the alternate universe of ‘The LASIK Industry Money Machine’ is severe dry eyes merely a “side effect” and not a serious health concern.

None of the information in this letter is news to the leaders in the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) and the Division of Ophthalmic and ENT Devices. You know about the hundreds of MedWatch reports related to LASIK injuries. You know about petitions to withdraw the approval of LASIK. You know that data submitted in the applications for FDA-approval of LASIK devices confirms that roughly 20 percent of patients experience dry eyes and night vision disturbances persisting beyond the endpoint of the clinical trials. You know that the body of medical literature demonstrates high incidence of dry eyes and night vision disturbances after LASIK. You know about LASIK-related suicides.

If Zicam can lead to loss of smell, then I believe the FDA took the proper action by issuing a warning to consumers. However, it is incomprehensible that the FDA would warn consumers to stop using a cold product due to risk of smell loss, yet fail to take swift action to protect the public from devices demonstrated to cause permanent impairment to the eyes of 20 percent or more of patients who undergo the LASIK procedure.

I implore you to explain the FDA’s position on this matter.

Reprinted with permission from fdaweb.com
6/11/2009

Despite CDRH guidance limiting allowable medical device “complications” to 1%, it has approved lasers used in LASIK vision-correction surgery that exceeded a 20% complication rate in the clinical studies that supported their marketing applications. This is the basis of a 6/11 request by LASIK victim Lauranell H. Burch, who is molecular genetics core facility director at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, that the devices’ approvals be revoked. She made the request in identical letters to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the HHS Inspector General.

Part of an escalating campaign to have FDA upgrade the devices’ labeling and enforce medical device reporting (MDR) requirements against ambulatory surgical facilities performing LASIK, Burch’s letters told the overseers that FDA “has been grossly negligent and has placed patients’ interests secondary to interests of medical device manufacturers.”

The letters follow by one day an appeal for presidential intervention from another activist and injured patient, and come less than two weeks before a scheduled 6/22 congressional presentation by injured patients and planned demonstration outside FDA headquarters.

Burch said about 700,000 people a year undergo LASIK, “largely as a result of aggressive and often-misleading advertising.” She did not mention CDRH compliance director Timothy A. Ulatowski’s cautionary message last month to eye professionals on marketing claims. Her letter linked CDRH’s other roles in the controversy to allegations by dissident Center scientists and physicians last October of corrupt scientific reviews.

Appending a bibliography of 19 footnoted medical literature citations, said adverse effects of LASIK are permanent and include:

• Reduced the biomechanical integrity of the cornea, which may lead to late onset corneal ectasia requiring corneal transplant.
• Corneal flap incisions that never completely heal and may be accidentally dislodged indefinitely.
• Life-long increased risk of corneal microorganisms.
• Corneal nerves which are severed and burned during LASIK and never fully regenerate normal densities and patterns, resulting in dry eye disease that can be permanent.
• LASIK-caused inaccurate intraocular lens power calculations for future cataract surgery.
• Inaccurate intraocular pressure measurement that exposes patients to risk of undiagnosed glaucoma and associated vision loss.
• Persistent and accelerated keratocyte (corneal cell) death. This means that corneas that have undergone LASIK may not last the patient’s lifetime.
• A reduction in quality of vision.

Burch called FDA’s 4/25/08 advisory committee meeting on injured patients’ complaints a “white-wash,” citing panel chairman and LASIK surgeon Jayne Weiss’ conclusion that “It appears to me from hearing what has been said today that this has really been a referendum on the performance of LASIK by some surgeons who should be doing a better job”. In the 14 months since then, Burch wrote, CDRH “has failed to respond to issues raised and requests for a moratorium on LASIK devices.”

Burch contended that LASIK-impaired vision, notwithstanding reported surveys showing high levels of patient satisfaction, are the cause of dangerous driving by people who have LASIK-induced loss of contrast sensitivity. “LASIK is a medically unnecessary surgery that carries with it substantial risk of permanent visual impairment,” she wrote. “As evidenced, LASIK complications occur frequently. With millions of LASIK procedures performed and high complication rates, it follows that LASIK eye surgery has become a leading cause of preventable visual impairment in the United States.

“I have submitted a Citizen’s Petition to the FDA to withdraw FDA approval of lasers for LASIK and have not received a response within 180 days as required by law. My petition is found at this link:  https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FDA-2008-P-0319.  Failure of the CDRH to ensure rigorous clinical trials and to respond to serious post-market safety and effectiveness concerns regarding LASIK in adherence to established regulatory requirements have resulted in irreparable harm to millions of Americans and is indeed a ‘silent danger’ to public health. For the reasons outlined here, I request an immediate withdrawal of FDA approval of LASIK devices.”

Reprinted with permission from FDAWeb Review (www.fdaweb.com)
06/10/2009

LASIK Patient Advocacy Network founder Scott A. Tolchin has written President Obama asking for intervention to help order a moratorium on LASIK eye surgery procedures due to an alleged increased rate of adverse events related to the procedure. Tolchin’s letter notes that patient advocates are planning a briefing on Capitol Hill 6/22 to discuss the moratorium request.

The letter acknowledges FDA’s recent interest in LASIK injuries, but it says the “problem is that the FDA alone does not have all of the necessary power to enforce the various aspects of LASIK issues that now threaten the public health and the strength of our economy, as more and more LASIK patients hit the disability roles. Advertising practices are governed by the FTC, doctor malpractice which is rampant is not being handled in a manner that proactively prevents adverse events from occurring, and when they do occur, LASIK patients encounter a ‘White Wall of Silence’ that prevents them from getting any justice, and has led to unprecedented incidences of depression, PTSD, and suicide.”

Additionally, the letter charges that FDA has operated in a corrupt fashion under the previous Bush administration by allowing laser devices to be approved that did not meet FDA guidelines or were cleared under a 510(k) based on a substantially equivalent device that was later recalled.

Here is the full text of Tolchin’s letter:

Dear President Obama,

I am writing to inform you of several issues regarding LASIK eye surgery that need to be addressed at a higher level than the FDA. On Monday, June 22, 2009 a group of LASIK patient advocates will be meeting on Capitol Hill to hold a congressional briefing on LASIK. At that briefing we will be calling for an immediate moratorium on LASIK eye surgery due to the fact that the adverse events are in the 30% range and are only allowed to be 1% or less according to FDA guidelines. This was all put into motion when I sent out 200 letters to congress, and filed a Citizen Petition with the FDA
(Docket # FDA-2009–P-0253-001/CP.)

Acting Commissioner of Food and Drugs, Joshua M. Sharfstein has opened an investigation into LASIK, and I believe that Commissioner Margaret Hamburg will be following up on this matter. The problem is that the FDA alone does not have all of the necessary power to enforce the various aspects of LASIK issues that now threaten the public health and the strength of our economy, as more and more LASIK patients hit the disability rolls. Advertising practices are governed by the FTC, doctor malpractice which is rampant is not being handled in a manner that proactively prevents adverse events from occurring, and when they do occur, LASIK patients encounter a “White Wall of Silence” that prevents them from getting any justice, and has led to unprecedented incidences of depression, PTSD, and suicide. I have documentation to support all of these assertions, most of which are listed in my petition on file with the FDA.

The FDA of the prior administration was rampant with corruption. There have been many instances of laser devices being approved that did not meet FDA guidelines or were approved on a 510(k) clearance based on a prior approved device that was later recalled by the FDA and the 510(k) devices are still on the market posing a dangerous threat to the public.

My group, LASIK Patient Advocacy Network www.LasikPatientAdvocacyNetwork.org is just one many LASIK patient advocacy groups participating in the briefing. The briefing is being sponsored by the National Research Center for Women and Families, and is being held in room HC-6, which was kindly secured with the assistance of Speaker Nancy Pelosi. I hope that you will send a representative from your office to the meeting and will assist us in bringing this matter to the public’s attention, and ensuring that the right steps are taken to protect the public health.

Mr. President, even if a LASIK patient has a perfect outcome from a LASIK procedure, there are several serious effects that they may not be aware of that could result in at best the need for glasses and contacts later in life and at worst the need for corneal transplants, corneal failure, loss of the LASIK flap, cataracts, and blindness. 100% of LASIK patients now have an open wound that was originally believed to heal. The LASIK flap never fully heals and makes the patient susceptible to increased risk of eye infections and diseases, inaccurate intraocular pressure measurements necessary for the detection of Glaucoma, and increased risk of the need for a corneal transplant should the patient lose the corneal flap by a poke or strike to the eye. Again, this is the situation for 100% of LASIK patients.

This procedure is an elective and unnecessary procedure whose risks far outweigh its short term benefits that only 70% of the patients may receive. I urge you to please consider supporting our call for an immediate moratorium on LASIK to protect the public while the FDA works through its investigation, which will surely show incidents of corruption with regard to laser manufacturers, conflicts of interest in LASIK studies that resulted in faulty data serving as the basis for FDA decisions, and a procedure that needs to be made illegal in the United States.

Thank you sincerely for your time to review and consider my request.

God Bless you. You are doing a wonderful job for the country.

Respectfully,
Scott A. Tolchin
Founder, LASIK Patient Advocacy Network
http://www.LasikPatientAdvocayNetwork.org