To The Editor:
Draft guidelines by the FDA warning about the risks of LASIK complications are
fundamentally flawed, because they don’t mention alternatives — and relative risks.
Most patients getting LASIK wear contacts, which are not risk-free. People in contacts
often do not clean them properly, or replace them less often than recommended and
“top off” solutions to save money — increasing infection risk. Many wear contacts
overnight, which has been shown in published studies to increase the risk of potentially
blinding corneal ulcers by one thousand percent.
Infections & corneal ulcers are not the only risks associated with wearing contact
lenses. A recent study conducted by an EPA-approved lab found that many cancerous
chemicals, including organic fluorine (a marker for PFAS), are present in the most
popular contact lens brands.
PFAS (per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances) are known as “forever chemicals” due to
their ability to remain in the human body for extended periods of times without breaking
down, therefore causing cancer, fetal complications, liver diseases, kidney disease,
thyroid disease, fertility problems, autoimmune disorders & other serious health issues.
Safer alternatives to LASIK exist. At a CME talk I gave to eye surgeons at Harvard, 93%
said they’d choose LASEK or PRK for themselves because of lower risks — even
though they performed LASIK because their patients chose “faster recovery over
safety”.
I may be the only eye doctor in the world who had LASIK in one eye, and LASEK in the
other. Can my experience that LASEK causes less dry eyes & night glare be dismissed
as anecdotal, when I’ve also performed 5,000 LASIKs and 21,000 LASEKs?
Optometrists claim they’re against LASIK because they prioritize patient safety — yet
secretly “co-manage” cases (in exchange for a 20% kick-back) and have thwarted
efforts by eye MDs to prevent contacts from being marketed as “safe” for overnight
wear.
There are ten times as many optometrists as ophthalmologists—with a corresponding
imbalance in PAC money. FDA guidelines should ignore lobbyists, and properly list
alternatives to LASIK—and their relative risks.
Emil W. Chynn, MD, MBA
The writer is a Scientific Advisor to the American Counsel for Science & Health & and
an ophthalmologist in NYC
