There are reputable doctors who actually care and some not so reputable doctors out there who could care less if they damaged your eyes. Listed here are some doctors, organizations, and agencies who have damaged or had a negative impact on patients or tarnished the industry. 


 Dr. William A Boothe (Retired)





This individual has spent a number of years harassing LASIK casualties on newsgroups (such as alt-lasik.eyes) and various forums. It seems a person of no degree can spit medical advice as if he was a Harvard graduate, however, next time 'Ragnar' offers his medical input, kindly remind him he is of no position to do so... Unless of course he received his degree while incarcerated.


This website, now obsolete but still unavailable appeared to be another marketing strategy to downplay the experiences of true LASIK casualties.


"We are all familiar with lawyers' ads on radio, TV and newspapers that offer their services if we have been injured. This is an example of expensive types of advertisements. Now lawyers have found a very cheap, effective and dishonest way to advertise by highlighting LASIK complications as a method to recruit clients. These sites claim to be honest sites created by LASIK patients who have had complicated LASIK surgery and the site warns people, thus protecting the public. However these sites are totally bogus. The sites are characterized by 100 percent rambling of complaints. The false message is that maybe LASIK is unsafe. These sites are "optimized" so that they appear on the first pages of major search engines."

If you went beyond the home page of this 'website', it was all ads... Guessing it was a nice way to make money.

Listed here because although everyone is entitled to their opinion, promotion of relatives and posting biased information is not ethical. Of all of the LASIK doctors out there, the below listed were the only ones on Barrett's site.

Stephen Barrett, brother-in-law and uncle of Drs. Herbert Nevyas and Anita Nevyas-Wallace who sued Morgan to shut down his website had involved himself in the Nevyas v. Morgan litigation on several occasions. Barrett had even taken a personal interest in going through Morgan's site along with (at the same times) the doctors and their lawyers. Barrett, as consumer advocate Tim Bolen claims, "is a de-licensed psychiatrist, who himself has been involved in countless defamation lawsuits". Seems the "do as I say, not as I do" approach works for some people, and of course some people ARE entitled to their opinion...




"Our interviews with jurors also revealed that they too saw through Barrett and felt that he was a litigious, ungrounded and biased denier of the truth. Barrett has been a gadfly, [a] thorn in the side of new ideas in health for over 30 years. He has cost untoward numbers of consumers pain, anguish and probably serious harm by his misrepresentation of the facts about subjects as diverse as acupuncture and zinc. It is time that his activities see the light of day under objective scrutiny. Because once they're seen for what they are, they will have no more impact."

"There are a number of pending financial judgments against Barrett that we are urging their attorneys to step forward and collect. There are a number of alternative health care professionals that we are urging to take action against Barrett. There are a number of consumers that we are urging [to] step forward and join the fray. Our objective is to eliminate the false and misleading information from Barrett's website and his entire network of websites and replace it with sound, useful information for consumers."


Do As I Say, Not As I Do


IRB Mischief

Some research-related schemes involve networks of practitioners, manufacturers, and others who hope that "research" claims will enable them to ward off government regulatory action and protect them from suits by dissatisfied customers. Some even set up (or pretend to set up) institutional review boards (IRBs) to oversee what they do. Such schemes can be difficult to investigate because IRBs are not usually required to publicly disclose their membership or activities. However, court cases and Internet postings sometimes bring their wrongdoing to light. A few years ago, for example, the American Association of Acupuncture and Bioenergetic Medicine told prospective members:

Ready access for the medical health care provider to AAABEM's Institutional Review Board (IRB), which can oversee each doctor's research protocol, thereby reducing the risks of adopting protocols which would be contrary to FDA regulation. The IRB can provide some protection for members from medical boards as well [10].

Over the years, I have encountered schemes in which IRBs (a) did not hold meetings, (b) did not properly review studies, (c) violated conflict-of-interest rules, (d) did not ensure that patients gave informed consent, and/or (e) were associated with illegally marketed medical devices. I have seen no evidence that IRB-related schemes actually protect the providers who participate. However, their consent forms and other trappings could persuade patients that bogus offerings are legitimate.

The consent forms used in IRB-related schemes typically include a liability waiver. Such waivers would not hold up in court because public policy does not permit people to sign away their right to be protected from fraud and negligence. In addition, federal regulations prohibit exculpatory language through which the subject or representative waives any legal rights or releases the investigator, the sponsor, the institution, or its agents from liability for negligence [11]. However, people who sign these waivers might fail to seek damages or report wrongdoing because they believe that they have signed away their right to do so.

The most notorious IRB was operated by the Great Lakes College of Clinical Medicine (GLCCM), which, in 2001, changed its name to the International College of Integrative Medicine. Documents posted to the Citizens for Responsible Care and Research (CIRCARE) Web site chronicle how at least 17 doctors associated with GLCCM have faced regulatory action [12] and that GLCCM's IRB shut down in 2001 after the FDA demanded compliance with its patient-protection rules [13].

It was OK for Herbert Nevyas, Barrett's Brother-In-Law, to use an IRB for his Investigational study. Hmmm...