6 ms·

As a subscriber I love the New York Times, but like many articles in the Wellness section this is low quality. The article starts off with: >A recent clinical

by rm999 8y ago

As a subscriber I love the New York Times, but like many articles in the Wellness section this is low quality. The article starts off with: >A recent clinical trial by the F.D.A. suggests that the complications experienced by Mr. Ramirez are not uncommon. Nearly half of all people who had healthy eyes before Lasik developed visual aberrations for the first time after the procedure, the trial found. And then five minutes of reading later leads to this valuable insight: >But many of the trial’s 574 participants reported having visual aberrations and dry eyes before surgery, and the study concluded that Lasik slightly reduced the prevalence of these problems. Why... didn't they put that in the same paragraph? The title of the article leads me to believe this obfuscation was on purpose. Then, a few minutes later into the article, they state: >The study’s lead author ... said the researchers had concluded that the multimillion dollar trial was too small to produce meaningful results, and that the purpose of the study had shifted from determining how many patients have problems functioning to developing a questionnaire that might be used in future research. Ugh. I just spent 10 minutes reading an article formed around a flawed study that contradicts the title. Filled with circumstantial evidence and discussion about clearly biased people (like the guy with seemingly no credentials who runs lasikcomplications.com).

cm2012 8y ago
That's a wrap, folks. This comment is more valuable by far than the article.
- NetOpWibby 8y ago
  I've learned to read the comments to any posted NYT article, than visiting said article itself.
  - stephengillie 8y ago
    I scan through HN's list of articles, and click "hide" on all NYT articles, before even reading titles. Same for many other newspapers and a few "usual suspect" websites. (This article was an exception, as I've had LASIK in the past 20 years, and it caught my eye.)
    - NetOpWibby 8y ago
      Haaaaah, I see what you did there. Wink wink.
  - forapurpose 8y ago
    Internet rants might sound smarter-than-thou, but I read the articles for myself: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17290745 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17290745
    - NetOpWibby 8y ago
      I value my time somewhat so if something sounds the least bit dubious, I peruse the top comments first.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    I've learned to read the HN comments to any posted article first - and then decide whether or not I want to catch up with the article itself.
  - matte_black 8y ago
    Only reason I read comments for NYT articles is to see if anyone has a scathing criticism about the article, and there usually is.
  - jasonkostempski 8y ago
    My RSS reader filters them out. I also built a browser plugin for myself to remove links to domains I never want to go to, NYT is 1 of them, mostly because of the paywall. Haven't made the plugin work for mobile FF yet though, thats how I got here.
  - NetOpWibby 8y ago
    Ooh, seems I've pissed off some people. Just look at those downvotes!
AckSyn 8y ago
The times' quality has gone south perceptibly in the last decade. I won't be renewing my subscription.
forapurpose 8y ago
For anyone who hasn't read the article, the parent is very misleading. The article presents at least half a dozen studies, interviews at least 20 people, and their list of credentials is exceptional.[0] In this case at least, it's not the Times' research that is 'low quality'. [0] I copied and pasted the credentialed people quoted in the article below; I only made it 80% of the way through and then realized it had become absurd: Diana Zuckerman, president of the nonprofit National Center for Health Research in Washington Dr. Eric Donnenfeld, who was Mr. Puglisi’s surgeon and a past president of the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery global medical director for a large laser eye-surgery provider Researchers at Ohio State University one surgeon’s 2017 analysis of more recent data Morris Waxler, a retired senior F.D.A. official ... [and] former chief of the diagnostic and surgical devices branch in the F.D.A.’s division of ophthalmic devices Dr. Cynthia MacKay [ophthalmologist] Dr. John Vukich, chair of the American Society for Cataract and Refractive Surgery’s refractive clinical surgery committee Dr. Malvina Eydelman, director of the division of ophthalmic and ear, nose and throat devices at the F.D.A.’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health Dr. Anat Galor, an associate professor of clinical ophthalmology at the Bascom Palmer Eye Institute at the University of Miami. Dr. Pedram Hamrah, director of research at the New England Eye Center at Tufts Medical Center
- rm999 8y ago
  I'd say we're both right: the article is based around a flawed study that hilariously contradicts the title and is full of circumstantial evidence. You are right that they cite plenty of other studies and quote qualified people. But I'd claim that the faults I cite instantly disqualify it from being a quality objective piece, and that there are likely better places to get a well argued viewpoint.
  - forapurpose 8y ago
    > I'd say we're both right I'd say the parent comment is factually wrong: > the article is based around a flawed study The article is based around at least 6 studies and a long list of interviews with experts. And the article's subtitle says, studies show (note the plural). So it's false to say the article is based on one study. > a flawed study that hilariously contradicts the title The title is, Lasik's Risks Are Coming Into Sharper Focus. Which study contradicts those words? Certainly not the one discussed in the GGP, which supports the claim that there is growing information about the amount of risk from Lasik. Again, the line quoted above is false. > circumstantial evidence I'm not sure what the parent refers to with that term, but as I pointed out, there is a large amount of evidence and experts analysis in the article. Circumstantial evidence is not a bad thing; it's evidence and is admissible in court, for example (AFAIK). It's just generally not considered sufficient by itself; in this article, it certainly has plenty of company. > disqualify it from being a quality objective piece They quote people and research on all sides of the issue, extensively. > hilariously ... instantly For me, hyperbole disqualifies comments from being taken seriously. It conveys a desire to rant and be dramatic, not a desire to reason about the facts. In fact, the former is often used as a substitute when the latter is lacking.
Yizahi 8y ago
You also cut the article to fit your point. E.g. full text regarding 574 participants: =================================== quote But many of the trial’s 574 participants reported having visual aberrations and dry eyes before surgery, and the study concluded that Lasik slightly reduced the prevalence of these problems. Three months after surgery, however, glare, halos and double vision were common, affecting 50 to 60 percent of all patients, with up to 5 percent characterizing them as “very” or “extremely” bothersome. Even after six months, some 41 percent of patients reported visual aberrations, with nearly 2 percent — or one in 50 — saying the symptoms presented “a lot of difficulty” or “so much difficulty that I can no longer do some of my usual activities.” And one-quarter of the patients followed six months had mild to severe dry eyes. =================================== end quote Note that wording here is unclear, because "many" is not quantified and we don't have percentage change over time here. Did it increase or not and by how much. But due to this it is possible to interpret this part however your want - that lasik made things worse or that it didn't.
- raverbashing 8y ago
  Are these 5% and 2% from the ones that had an issue (hence, from the 50%/60%) or from all patients? Also, did this trial use a microkeratome or the femtosecond laser for flap creation?
banachtarski 8y ago
I don't agree with your logic or conclusions (even ignoring the factual inaccuracies pointed out by others). Those two "observations" you linked are in no way mutually exclusive and it may very well make it the same/better for some people and irreparably worse for others. Side note: Anecdotally, my late father had the exact same issues as what is presented early in the article. Needed eye drops every 30 minutes to an hour and his quality of life dropped dramatically as a result of lasik.

by rm999 8y ago

cm2012 8y ago

That's a wrap, folks. This comment is more valuable by far than the article.

NetOpWibby 8y ago
I've learned to read the comments to any posted NYT article, than visiting said article itself.
- stephengillie 8y ago
  I scan through HN's list of articles, and click "hide" on all NYT articles, before even reading titles. Same for many other newspapers and a few "usual suspect" websites. (This article was an exception, as I've had LASIK in the past 20 years, and it caught my eye.)
  - NetOpWibby 8y ago
    Haaaaah, I see what you did there. Wink wink.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  Internet rants might sound smarter-than-thou, but I read the articles for myself: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17290745 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17290745
  - NetOpWibby 8y ago
    I value my time somewhat so if something sounds the least bit dubious, I peruse the top comments first.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  I've learned to read the HN comments to any posted article first - and then decide whether or not I want to catch up with the article itself.
- matte_black 8y ago
  Only reason I read comments for NYT articles is to see if anyone has a scathing criticism about the article, and there usually is.
- jasonkostempski 8y ago
  My RSS reader filters them out. I also built a browser plugin for myself to remove links to domains I never want to go to, NYT is 1 of them, mostly because of the paywall. Haven't made the plugin work for mobile FF yet though, thats how I got here.
- NetOpWibby 8y ago
  Ooh, seems I've pissed off some people. Just look at those downvotes!

AckSyn 8y ago

The times' quality has gone south perceptibly in the last decade. I won't be renewing my subscription.

forapurpose 8y ago

For anyone who hasn't read the article, the parent is very misleading. The article presents at least half a dozen studies, interviews at least 20 people, and their list of credentials is exceptional.[0] In this case at least, it's not the Times' research that is 'low quality'. [0] I copied and pasted the credentialed people quoted in the article below; I only made it 80% of the way through and then realized it had become absurd: Diana Zuckerman, president of the nonprofit National Center for Health Research in Washington Dr. Eric Donnenfeld, who was Mr. Puglisi’s surgeon and a past president of the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery global medical director for a large laser eye-surgery provider Researchers at Ohio State University one surgeon’s 2017 analysis of more recent data Morris Waxler, a retired senior F.D.A. official ... [and] former chief of the diagnostic and surgical devices branch in the F.D.A.’s division of ophthalmic devices Dr. Cynthia MacKay [ophthalmologist] Dr. John Vukich, chair of the American Society for Cataract and Refractive Surgery’s refractive clinical surgery committee Dr. Malvina Eydelman, director of the division of ophthalmic and ear, nose and throat devices at the F.D.A.’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health Dr. Anat Galor, an associate professor of clinical ophthalmology at the Bascom Palmer Eye Institute at the University of Miami. Dr. Pedram Hamrah, director of research at the New England Eye Center at Tufts Medical Center

rm999 8y ago
I'd say we're both right: the article is based around a flawed study that hilariously contradicts the title and is full of circumstantial evidence. You are right that they cite plenty of other studies and quote qualified people. But I'd claim that the faults I cite instantly disqualify it from being a quality objective piece, and that there are likely better places to get a well argued viewpoint.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > I'd say we're both right I'd say the parent comment is factually wrong: > the article is based around a flawed study The article is based around at least 6 studies and a long list of interviews with experts. And the article's subtitle says, studies show (note the plural). So it's false to say the article is based on one study. > a flawed study that hilariously contradicts the title The title is, Lasik's Risks Are Coming Into Sharper Focus. Which study contradicts those words? Certainly not the one discussed in the GGP, which supports the claim that there is growing information about the amount of risk from Lasik. Again, the line quoted above is false. > circumstantial evidence I'm not sure what the parent refers to with that term, but as I pointed out, there is a large amount of evidence and experts analysis in the article. Circumstantial evidence is not a bad thing; it's evidence and is admissible in court, for example (AFAIK). It's just generally not considered sufficient by itself; in this article, it certainly has plenty of company. > disqualify it from being a quality objective piece They quote people and research on all sides of the issue, extensively. > hilariously ... instantly For me, hyperbole disqualifies comments from being taken seriously. It conveys a desire to rant and be dramatic, not a desire to reason about the facts. In fact, the former is often used as a substitute when the latter is lacking.

Yizahi 8y ago

You also cut the article to fit your point. E.g. full text regarding 574 participants: =================================== quote But many of the trial’s 574 participants reported having visual aberrations and dry eyes before surgery, and the study concluded that Lasik slightly reduced the prevalence of these problems. Three months after surgery, however, glare, halos and double vision were common, affecting 50 to 60 percent of all patients, with up to 5 percent characterizing them as “very” or “extremely” bothersome. Even after six months, some 41 percent of patients reported visual aberrations, with nearly 2 percent — or one in 50 — saying the symptoms presented “a lot of difficulty” or “so much difficulty that I can no longer do some of my usual activities.” And one-quarter of the patients followed six months had mild to severe dry eyes. =================================== end quote Note that wording here is unclear, because "many" is not quantified and we don't have percentage change over time here. Did it increase or not and by how much. But due to this it is possible to interpret this part however your want - that lasik made things worse or that it didn't.

raverbashing 8y ago
Are these 5% and 2% from the ones that had an issue (hence, from the 50%/60%) or from all patients? Also, did this trial use a microkeratome or the femtosecond laser for flap creation?

banachtarski 8y ago

I don't agree with your logic or conclusions (even ignoring the factual inaccuracies pointed out by others). Those two "observations" you linked are in no way mutually exclusive and it may very well make it the same/better for some people and irreparably worse for others. Side note: Anecdotally, my late father had the exact same issues as what is presented early in the article. Needed eye drops every 30 minutes to an hour and his quality of life dropped dramatically as a result of lasik.