Talk:Keratoconus

In several language versions of this article as well as of the Pellucid marginal degeneration article, the following sentence is still included, allthough it was deleted from English Wikipedia in 2005:

It is sometimes called the "academic's eye disease" because two-thirds of the people afflicted with it have IQs above 130.^[1][2]

See Talk:Keratoconus/Archive_1#Academic.27s_Eye_Disease talk archive from 2006.

The sentence was added to english Wikipedia in 2004, but I can not see that the sources ever were provided here, but in several other language versions. Does anyone have access to the sources, or can you at least give more accurate names of the sources? This piece of information is also spread to seveal other sites, for example , but I am not sure it should be considered reliable. It might be a very successful desinformation attempt. I just want to verify that we can delete this claim from other language versions. In at least Swedish the term "academic's eye disease" is a redirect to "Keratoconus". I suppose that the redirected term also should be deleted? I have not seen it in the literature or in any scholarly papers, neither in Swedish nor English. Mange01 (talk) 09:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I have never seen any reference for it, and am tempted to believe that the sentence is flat-out false. —BillC ^talk 22:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Doc James has removed the most useful parts of the article about about its treatments and replaced the whole Cross-linking section with a short and insufficient section at the bottom of the article, citing this recently published review study. although I appreciate his contributions here, I am sure all the involved editors, optometrist, ophthalmologist and KC patients would agree with me that Cross-linking is one of most important subjects in this article and should not be ignored like this.

I restored a trimmed-down version of the Cross-linking section. however, restoring some of the other removed information (Keraflex/microwave thermoplasty, different types of lenses, and corneal implants) may require further discussion. k18s (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

We appear to have a large number of paid editors adding poorly referenced and promotional content to this and a number of other articles. Some have already been blocked as sockpuppets.

We have a 2015 Cochrane review that states as its conclusions "The evidence for the use of CXL in the management of keratoconus is limited due the lack of properly conducted RCTs." That you have attempted to summarize this as "Corneal collagen crosslinking with riboflavin is a developing treatment for keratoconus" and to place this before established treatments is concerning. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this and some related articles are the target of some businesses. it is our job to keep it clean and ad free, but that's not a good reason to remove the sections completely.

You placed the Cross-linking section under the Radial keratotomy which I think is very wrong, RK is really not a good choice for KC, but CXL is a widely practiced treatment around the Europe and it is expected to be accepted in the U.S soon. I suggest we contact Samer Hamada (an author who his email address is available on the Cochrane review) by email or Twitter about this matter.

I stand by my opinion that Cross-linking should be regarded as the most important surgical treatment for keratoconus. k18s (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

You think "that Cross-linking should be regarded as the most important" while a Cochrane review finds insufficient evidence for it? As you state it is not even accepted in the USA. ANd you want it to go first?

A summary of the content was not removed it was moved to under research. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

It is accepted in many countries around the world, I guess Wikipedia shouldn't be all about the US and FDA?! CXL is available on the NHS in the UK k18s (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

And it isn't. We emphasise the best available evidence which is that Cochrane review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@User:CFCF & User:Doc James: doesn't it look weird to you that the cross-linking section starts by saying that the surgery is "not useful" even before explaining what is it about?! is my edit really not acceptable? k18s (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

You don't seem to be familiar with WP:MEDMOS. Generally the first thing we discuss is efficacy, then safety. Jytdog (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Surely you should first say what something is, then describe its efficacy. —BillC ^talk 23:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

One does in the article about the thing in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

What happened to this page, I wonder? It's like being back in the 1990s, when the only common treatment was corneal transplantation...this is ridiculous, honestly. Who scrapped 20 years of successful research? Who modified the Corneal Cross-linking section, making it considerably worse? Who removed the other treatments, which were backed by clinical studies? The international medical community is rapidly abandoning corneal transplantation as a treatment for KC in favour of conservative treatments (CXL, CK, MARK, etc.), but this page seems stuck in a time warp. I suspect that someone with very specific interests has won this edit battle. Problem is, this page is now completely useless, not to say scientifically obsolete and laughable from a medical point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.66.175 (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Wondering what people think about

"Keratoconus is relatively rare and largely unknown in the general population, and the practical application of standard treatments has limits. Examples of the difficulties involved in prescribing corrective lenses, especially glasses lenses, and complications that arise from wearing contact lenses are discussed in Taking the Heat - A Steelworker's Story. In this memoir Richard Sarver details the challenges of functioning as a laborer in a steel mill while contending with keratoconus and high myopia. With other career choices limited because of his low vision, Sarver sought employment at a Roanoke, Virginia steel mill, where he has worked for more than 30 years. The corrective lenses available to him have provided only marginal improvement to his vision.^[1] "

-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a single case history which doesn't add to the subject matter. The facts which it does say about it: "relatively rare and largely unknown in the general population", "practical application of standard treatments has limits" are already discussed elsewhere in the text. —BillC ^talk 23:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes my thoughts aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• http://avedro.com/en-us/press-releases/avedro-receives-fda-approval/
• http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/862122

I guess we can now add more details about crosslinking. keep in mind that this approval only applies to the method used by Avedro, their KXL system and riboflavin solutions. corneal collagen cross-linking should be updated too! k18s (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Press releases are not great sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

This probably has a record on FDA.gov too... but it seems you think FDA's decision isn't important enough... k18s (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Cochrane is better IMO. The FDA approval is still in there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Keratoconus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090107180802/http://www.pacificu.edu/optometry/ce/courses/15167/etiologypg1.cfm to http://www.pacificu.edu/optometry/ce/courses/15167/etiologypg1.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Current lead section is misleading. in KC many of the mentioned surgical options are not necessary, a good fitted contact lens is all needed, corneal graft is the ONLY surgical option that sometime may be really required, and crosslinking just has a different purpose and should not be in one group with others. in my opinion we should remove some of the less studied surgical options from the lead. k18s (talk) 05:53, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding this edit

These distinctions you are trying to make in the lead are not anywhere in body and are not sourced in the body, or anywhere else. The lead just summarizes the body and content everywhere is based only on reliable sources. Jytdog (talk) 06:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Following was my edit:

In most cases, different types of contact lenses fitted by a specialist are effective enough to allow the person to continue to drive legally and likewise function normally. crosslinking may be used to slow or halt the progression of the disease and several surgical options are also available to correct the vision, including intrastromal corneal ring segments, mini asymmetric radial keratotomy, corneal intrastromal implantation system (CISIS), topography-guided photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), topography-guided conductive keratoplasty, phakic intraocular lenses and, in 25% of cases with further progression of the disease corneal transplantation may be required.

And this is what you prefer, the current one:

In most cases, corrective lenses fitted by a specialist are effective enough to allow the person to continue to drive legally and likewise function normally. Further progression of the disease may require surgery, for which several options are available, including intrastromal corneal ring segments, corneal collagen cross-linking, mini asymmetric radial keratotomy, corneal intrastromal implantation system (CISIS), topography-guided photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), topography-guided conductive keratoplasty, phakic intraocular lenses and, in 25% of cases, corneal transplantation.

Which "distinctions" are you talking about? in the edit which you reverted, I have not actually removed anything yet. I only changed the wording and order of sentences. k18s (talk) 06:08, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

The ones you made here and here among the various kinds of surgical treatments. Jytdog (talk) 06:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand why you refer to this talk page section as a "reason" for your edit! also please be specific about the parts of my edit which you believe is not right. there is no need to link to the diff as I have included it above.

"Further progression of the disease may require surgery"

The above line is totally misleading as it suggests that the mentioned surgical options are helpful after "further progression". the truth is they are simply alternatives to contact lenses, some of these are not suitable for people with thin corneas and none of them actually slow or halt the progression. corneal transplantation is the only one that should be mentioned after the "further progression". k18s (talk) 06:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

where is this discussed and sourced in the body of the article? Jytdog (talk) 06:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Exactly! where is the current one mentioned and sourced in the body of the article? where is it mentioned that any of those surgical options will help more than contact lenses after "further progression". Where are your sources? k18s (talk) 06:28, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I have created a new sub-section because this discussion is not about removal of content which I suggested above. k18s (talk) 06:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

The body mentions contacts and various surgical procedures without prioritizing them except to say that contacts generally are tried first; this is what the current lead does as well. Both your edits somehow try to distinguish cross-linking from other non-contact approaches. There is nothing in the body to support that. Jytdog (talk) 06:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

The current lead clearly suggests that once the disease had "further progression", surgical options will help, which is not correct and not mentioned in the body. you are correct about the crosslinking, in my opinion the article should be corrected there too. as per body, only corneal transplant is helpful once the disease "progress to a point where vision correction is no longer possible". k18s (talk) 06:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Also it would have been much easier if you had improved my edit instead of reverting it. interestingly the current lead which you support does not reflect the body at all. the whole following line cannot be found anywhere in the body "corneal intrastromal implantation system (CISIS), topography-guided photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), topography-guided conductive keratoplasty, phakic intraocular lenses" and yet you keep reverting/supprting a wrong version. k18s (talk) 07:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

My new edit is a word-by-word copy of the body. Thanks for guiding me to the right direction. k18s (talk) 07:19, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree that lesser studied options belong in the body of the text. As cross linking is controversial does not belong in the lead. Simplified some. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@James, controversial, correct, read this editorial top to bottom. but how could you justify the MARK, RK and ICRS articles? according to you, just looking up those two on PubMed should be enough for removing them from the lead or even the article. please don't hate CXL, it is a very important topic for anyone concerned with KC. k18s (talk) 10:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Will look at the underlying literature behind those.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Have updated the lead based on the National Eye Institute of the NIH. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

looks good. Jytdog (talk) 07:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Much better. Thank you James. k18s (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Keratoconus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070630052538/https://vrcc.wustl.edu/clekarchive/ to https://vrcc.wustl.edu/clekarchive/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051031055107/http://www.nei.nih.gov:80/health/cornealdisease/index.asp to http://www.nei.nih.gov/health/cornealdisease/index.asp#h

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Before making this edit I have checked some other featured medical articles (e.g. Parkinson's disease#Advocacy) and many of them have an Advocacy section. how should we talk about awareness days and supporting organizations? k18s (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

The sourcing for that was terrible and itself reflected advocacy. it is maybe ok to have an advocacy section if there are decent sources for it; twitter and the advocacy group's website are unacceptable. Jytdog (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

This is NKCF's own website http://worldkcday.com. I could only find one proper third-party source and all other mentions are on social media. is Twitter not acceptable even to show the recognition? how many sources are needed for something like this? k18s (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Would it be okay if I find Twitter, Facebook mentions from verified accounts of third-party organizations? k18s (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

diff k18s (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

especially for advocacy topics we need independent sources that are solid. exactly because of WP:PROMO which is policy; see also the WP:Advocacy essay. Strong sourcing for this kind of content, please. Jytdog (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Infoboxes are supposed to contain simple details. Therefore removed the name of sign which IMO belongs in the body not the lead. Others thoughts.

• Option 1 "The "cone shaped cornea" that is characteristic of keratoconus"

• Option 2 "Munson's sign showing a "cone shaped cornea" that is characteristic of keratoconus"

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Keratoconus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131211044918/http://www.nkcf.org/what-is-keratoconus/ to http://www.nkcf.org/what-is-keratoconus/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101012170024/http://www.contactlensheadlines.com/2010/06/softperm-hybrid-contact-lenses-discontinued/ to http://www.contactlensheadlines.com/2010/06/softperm-hybrid-contact-lenses-discontinued/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello all. There really needs to be more exploration of treatment options - for example, the comment "in KC many of the mentioned surgical options are not necessary, a good fitted contact lens is all needed" is completely fine if you have keratoconus that's not progressing, and if it never progresses again, that's all well and dandy. But... rubbing your eyes is sometimes all that's required to get keratoconus progressing again, and it's at this point where people would have benefitted from CXL to stop their cone from progressing (and this is especially important in children). There's a perception that scleral contact lenses stop the progression of keratoconus: that isn't true and this perception needs to be addressed. There seems to be some debate here on the merits of CXL - and the CXL page itself is very sparse. Finally, the Cochrane review from 5 years ago came to that conclusion because all the trials were small and performed very haphazardly (to be honest), the endpoint assessments are still under debate and everyone has used similar but different ones, but there's now 10-year follow-up data, the FDA approved it, and it's by no means perfect, but it is more than a sentence pointing to a systematic review from 2015. If anyone else cares to help update this, that would be great, but if nobody minds, I'll try and update sections of it over the next however many months when I have some more time.

Since there are only a handful treatment options, there should be a section with novel or experimenting treatments. This page is importent for KC, including myself, patients and should include all information. CXL, CISIS and others have been deleted several times, while others such as partial rings, contact lenses are omnipresent.

Hello - Below are some edits that should be considered to the opening of this page around some statistics, diagnosis, and treatments. 

In the 2nd Paragraph:

- Replace "About seven percent of those affected have a family history of the condition" with "Patients with a parent, sibling, or child who has keratoconus have 15 to 67 times higher risk in developing corneal ectasia compared to patients with no affected relatives(2)(3)."

- Replace "Diagnosis is by examination with a slit lamp" with "Diagnosis is most often by topography. Topography measures the curvature of the cornea and creates a colored “map” of the cornea. Keratoconus causes very distinctive changes in the appearance of these maps, which allows doctors to make the diagnosis."

      - In 2016, the FDA approved corneal collagen cross-linking to halt the progression of keratoconus. In some cases, when the cornea becomes dangerously thin or when sufficient vision can no longer be achieved by contact lenses due to steepening of the cornea, scarring or lens intolerance, corneal cross-linking is not an option and a corneal transplant may be required.

Thank you! LivingWithKC (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello - Below are some edits that should be considered to the Signs and Symptoms, Genetics, and Diagnosis sections of this page.

Signs and symptoms

Update Opening Sentence: People with early keratoconus often notice a minor blurring or distortion of their vision, as well as an increased sensitivity to light, and visit their clinician seeking corrective lenses for reading or driving.

Genetics

Add: Patients with a parent, sibling, or child who has keratoconus have 15 to 67 times higher risk in developing corneal ectasia compared to patients with no affected relatives.

Diagnosis

Add: Add a new paragraph between "A handheld keratoscope.." and "A more definitive diagnosis..."

Change: centreline to centerline

Thank you! LivingWithKC (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

(Redacted)

Thank you! LivingWithKC (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, we can't add that, because it's copied from a copyright web page. Also, please see WP:MEDRS.— Diannaa (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Who is controlling it and who do they work for? ~2025-42352-73 (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

@BillC: reverted you and the WP:edit summary they gave was "spam link". Instead of questioning their motive (who do they work for?) the constructive way forward is to explain how the link you added is not spam. Robby.is.on (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't take kindly to random people saying that they are the overlord of this page. So why not just answer the question ❓ ~2025-43229-65 (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

To answer your question, no one has said they are the overlord of this page, nor for that matter is anyone. The second part of your question ('who do they work for?') is therefore not relevant. Over the years, there have been multiple attempts to add kcglobal to the list of external links (I found three insertions in the history before I stopped looking). These have been reverted by various different users. This was the first time I have reverted it. There is every sign that the addition of this site to the list of external links is intended to drive traffic to that site, which would make it a spam link per the provisions of the content guideline WP:SPAMLINK: "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam". If you think this is wrongly applied in this (and the earlier cases), the way forward, as Robby.is.on has said, is to explain why the link is not spam. As a matter of historical record, this article has been plagued over the years by editors wanting to promote some product, website, clinic, non-mainstream treatment, and so on, and adding material and links to do so. —BillC ^talk 13:16, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

if no one is the overlord of the page then why do I need to answer to you?

You are conflating the matter to hide your own flaws.

I can send you traffic reports showing that we don't need the traffic you allege we are after.

Years ago when I come here to find out some basic facts... after months of talking in the end a picture of an old lady was supplied!!! And there was no rhyme or reason to... it was supplied to say that you don't do what you say and are dodgy as the day is long...

Obviously there's bribery of some kind that was going on and probably is going on still... ~2025-43229-65 (talk) 13:43, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

There is obviously no bribery taking place. Please don't resort to personal attacks: WP:CIVIL. —BillC ^talk 14:10, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

It was so blantant and still discusting and rotten to the core!

And its you who right off the bat made allegations!

Now that you have smeared... it means you have nailed your colours to the mast...

Here you will find that OT knows who is who: https://europe.ophthalmologytimes.com/view/useful-links ~2025-43270-79 (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

I will give it a good numnber of days for why it is that you are so want to put your head in the sand and give time for any comments there may be (sofar its been negative comments and the motive for that is untoward because there is no need for it) or forever hold your peace.

Ever wondered why things has got better in Keratoconus in regards to Keratoconus? Was it because of the 'over lords' here who love to throw their weight around... was it due to them that things have got better?

Its for definate, the same type of people are the ones who had been holding back things AND THEY ARE STILL DOING IT!!! ~2025-43270-79 (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

OK, we have some stuff to unpack. I have accused you (if we wish to use such a word) of:

• Adding a link to your own website in order to increase incoming traffic.

As I understand it, in turn you have accused me of:

• claiming personal overlordship of this article;
• accepting bribes (from unstated persons) to maintain a particular version of this article;
• holding back keratoconus research, and thereby diminishing patients' outcomes and quality of life, by means of this article.

I haven't been here responding to your every post here because the issue doesn't matter enough to me: if you must add a link to your website, go ahead and do so; I won't remove it again. My belief about why you want it so badly is undiminished, indeed is strengthened, by the above exchange. But I can't guarantee that in the future someone else won't remove it, as has already happened at least three times in this article's history. —BillC ^talk 11:25, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Ok we are getting somewhere but just a few things...

I have no idea what your motive is... I say that because there is a glaring ideoticy in the artilcle which has been there for years (probably even a decade) which should have been picked up by you who seems to be the unelected 'gate keeper!'

This craziness in the articvle can only be there due to:

1) there person/s involved in adding it and or editing are transplanbt patients.

2) Someone/persons wishes to see their treatment florish and as such their bank balance.

As well as that you are making total guesses to belittle only in your comments above.

In regards to overlordship... of course... it is you who has thrown a wobbly... therefore it is you running the show... and a show it is.... because you have said you have removed the link but that you wont now... however friends of yours will. So you are biased that means.

In regards to burbary...I said it is *probably* might be going on... why else would you spout your venom??

This them leads to twisting the truth...and you have exaggerated your claims of me saying 'holding back keratoconus research, and thereby diminishing patients' outcomes and quality of life, by means of this article'

What is your motive? what kick do you get out of throwing your weight around?

Your allegations have been pull out of thin air... just like what a school bully would do!

I think you are lonely and your editing friends... You simply have nothing better to do... You just love getting on your high horse... just to get on your high horse only! ~2025-43270-79 (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

You seem to think that your caliber is as much, if not, more then that of Ophthalmology Times when it comes to matters that are in the ophthalmology field.

I think you passing yourself off as the be and end all of ophthalmology compared to ophthalmology times really is something that you should be given an award for.

Also please do consider that those that pushed more people into transplants really do need to get aired because what they have done and are still doing is akin to the most terrible of sins.

Also in the article there is nothing about the complications there are with contact lenses. They are medical devices and as such should list the side effects and risks but universally that's not disclosed at the earliest possible time or any time when decisions on options are considered or otherwise.

These things are just a fraction of the things that you do not want to communicate. There are plenty more things also but they might make you explode just knowing about them. You have done a great job to cover up much so far! ~2025-43229-65 (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Where have you gone to? ~2025-43270-79 (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2025 (UTC)