I would also like to add that I can only assume that my account of my experience is being questioned by Optical Express based on their own assessments stating that I have achieved 20:20 vision.
As I have stressed many many times, 20:20 vision is far from perfect vision. All I have achieved from having Lasik with OE are eye floaters, starbursts, halos, dry eye, visual fluctuation, constant tired eyes and increased anxiety verging into depression.
Somehow I don't think I desired this result when I opted for the procedure but so long as Optical Express have achieved that crucial objective of 20:20 vision then they will not care about the consequences to their patient.
I would also like to comment here on the paragraph below from OE -
"The respondent highlights in her response content made available at
. It is alleged through the material made available at this link that the services provided by the complainant are deficient. This is not true. The complainant has confirmed that, following investigation, the objectives of the relevant treatment were achieved, and that no further treatment has been recommended by an independent surgeon. As such the complainant is not at fault, and the material upon the site is not representative of the facts and as such unfair."
This comment is simply rubbish, I have seen many different specialists, OE's very own Prof Jan Venter in his own words 'doesn't know how to fix me', my eyesight is awful, I am now practically disabled due to the surgery I had at Optical Express, I have various reports from different eye specialists, but should Nominet require one of the highest order then I have a report completed by -edited- who confirms my problems and proposes a complex treatment for a fix/repair on my eyes that have been damaged by OE. Although even with this fix there's only 70% chance of regaining a good standard of vision, and even then its entirely possible that my eyes are now just not suitable for any more surgery after being operated on twice by OE and that pretty much leaves me permanently disabled.
Make no mistakes, if my eyes needed no further treatment then why did OE send me to Harley St many times over the last few years and to various specialists in an attempt to find a fix for my eyes?
OE have also ignored the fact that like so many others I talk to I am suing them!
Optical Express are again fighting to have this site taken down. The 'respondent' Sasha Rodoy sent me this information concerning myself which OE's legal team have included to support their argument.
"The respondent provides document '442745-attachment to Doc.8 Michelle P•••••• (2).pdf' as evidence supporting the presence of deficiencies in the treatment provided by the complainant, elucidated upon the site at
. The complainant has confirmed that following investigation the objectives of the treatment were achieved. As such the complainant is not at fault, and the material upon the site is not representative of the facts and as such unfair".
For avoidance of doubt I am Michelle and would like to stress that whilst my vision may have improved, the points I made in my story are FACTS that mainly concern side effects that I am still experiencing TWO years post Lasik. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, the complainant IS still at FAULT!
I've read most of the content here with fascination and horror!
It goes without saying that Optical Express should be put out of business (sooner rather than later), but equally disturbing to me is 123-reg's refusal to allow the content via their hosting platform.
"Legal team for DCM Ltd, Harper MacLeod, made a similar complaint to website host 123-reg, who advised that unless the true accounts from Optical Express patients were removed the website would be taken down."
I appreciate 123-reg's reservations when the OERML domain name was in dispute, but as Nominet ruled in favour of the author I see no reason for 123-reg to continue to disallow the content, as this makes them complicit with Optical Express, suffocating the right to free speech and censoring the truth.