Thursday, July 9, 2009

Dr. Downing and Dr Porter Could have helped me!!!!

After having been pushed into surgery by Dr Porter and developing CME with the outcome of having lost much of my sight in my right eye, and then Dr Downing asking me to see him and let him " fix " it, only to have him make it worse even still. Now I find out that they could have helped me!!!!

There is a Retisert implant that could have helped at least some of the major problem,, so why didn't Downing follow through on his promise to help fix Porters destruction to my sight?? Again, I think it came down to money,, see the implant is expensive, so guess they would rather sweep my problem, their mistake, under the rug than to have to take the hit of a few thousand bucks,,, yep, after all, they only knock down over 35 million a year in that firm, guess a couple of thousand was too much to have put out to fix their destruction, better that I go through the rest of my life with little vision.
They didn't even have the decency to tell me that there was something out there that could help me!!!!
I get it that Dr Porter didn't want to admit that he knew little about my original condition and just wanted to push me through the surgery mill to add to his Christmas fund, and even understand that Dr Downing only wanted to try to cover for Dr Porters mistakes, but it truly is indecent to not even have told me about this that could help restore some of my sight.
I truly do not see how they sleep at night, I guess being in denial of your mistakes is a blessing for them but I believe that after they leave this world they will have to account for the things they have done.----------------------------- Added 7/11/09-----

Because of comments left by someone who doesn't know much about retisert I thought I would add the following information from the journal ophthamology management
" "I believe that with its unique drug-delivery technology, Retisert will offer an efficacious treatment for this chronic, severe blinding disease," said Glenn J. Jaffe, M.D., professor of Ophthalmology and director of the Uveitis Service at Duke University Eye Center.
"FDA approval of Retisert represents a significant milestone in Bausch & Lomb's pursuit of new therapies and technologies to treat posterior segment diseases," said Gary M. Phillips, M.D., B & L corporate vice president, Global Pharmaceuticals and Vitreoretinal.
FDA approval of the drug was based on 34-week results from two 3-year, randomized, double-masked, multicenter clinical studies demonstrating that in eyes with Retisert there was:
► a significant decrease in the recurrence of uveitis from approximately 40% to 54% for the 34-week period pre-implantation to approximately 7% to 14% for the 34-week period post-implantation
► a significant decrease in the use of adjunctive therapy, including systemic corticosteroid and/or immunosuppressive therapy, from approximately 47% to 63% at the time of implantation to approximately 5% to 10% at 34 weeks post-implantation, and for patients needing periocular corticosteroid injections from approximately 50% to 65% for the 34-week period pre-implantation to approximately 3% to 6% for the 34-week period post-implantation
statistically significant improvement of 3 or more lines of visual acuity in approximately 19% to 21% of study eyes at 34 weeks post-implantation.
The most common adverse events attributed to Retisert, which were anticipated given the nature of the disease and the type of drug used, include cataract progression, which is managed by standard cataract surgery; increased intraocular pressure, which is managed with the use of IOP-lowering eye drops or filtering surgery; and procedural complications and eye pain. "

The person who commented and tries very hard to make excuses for Dr Downing and Dr Porter's actions, though very loyal, is mistaken on the complications of the retisert implant, and obviously knows and has read very little of this blog , or would realize that the testing I have gone through, the corticosteroids etc are not very good for a person either, the next step was going to be injections in the eye, this is very painful has to be repeated often and DOES bring risks of infections etc, this implant is much less risk, less pain, and better results, although, the person may know something about the cleanliness of Downing McPeaks offices, so maybe they are right about infection if the person had the implant done there, I'll give them leeway on that, but if done in a correct environment, shouldn't be a problem.


  1. If you did your research on this with a TRUE retinal specialist you would find that even at a university hospital this DRUG not implant is rarely used. Mainly because the majority of INSURANCE companies deny to pay. Also if you read the number of complications like infections and also a VERY high risk of retinal detachments most of the time the RETINA specialists doesn't even agree to do it. A patient like yourself that has 20/50 vision most likely would not even be considered for this. It is one thing to accuse a doctor of something but I have a feeling that these doctors did everything that they could to help you and you gave up on them. I highly doubt that they just said Oh we blinded you you now go away we are done with you ! In case you didn't know physicans take an oath when we graduate from medical school and it is "FIRST DO NO HARM" Believe me this sticks with you.

  2. Right,, I agree,, it is rarely used because insurance doesn't pay,, but , Dr Downing got me to go back to him by saying that he would try to fix what Porter messed up, for free, so I think they had an obligation to have paid for it. secondly, I no longer have 20/50... I now have worse than 20/100 after Dr Porter and Dr Downing got done with me.
    I am glad you have a " feeling " that they done everything they could, I just pointed out what they could have done, after they messed up.
    Yes, they take an oath to " first do no harm " it obviously doesn't stick with many doctors, they did harm me, and if you have read the posts and links, there are many out there who are doing unwarranted surgeries , too bad that some get caught, and some just keep on harming people.
    As for high risk of retinal detachment, gee, wish they had been concerned about that BEFORE they messed my sight up, see, what they did evidently put me at high risk for many things, including retinal detachment, so the difference as I see it is that they messed up my vision to make money, they didn't fix it because it would cost them money.


Please leave comments or questions