Nominet bins Optical Express' appeal against 'It ruined my life' website Optical Express has failed to silence an outspoken critic of the High Street optician, after Nominet chucked out an appeal against the owner of a website that attacks the company's laser eye surgery business. The unsuccessful action taken by DCM (Optical holdings) Ltd, which owns Optical Express, is the latest in a series of …
And yet if you type in "Optical Express Problems", this is the first site that comes up in Google.
So, if you were wondering whether optical express were any good (perhaps because you want corrective eye surgery and were comparing products), you would immediately be put off. No Streisand effect needed.
if you are researching whether to go ahead with the treatment or not, you find them quite quickly.
having been blind in one eye since birth i was really interested in this type of treatment when it first came out, thorough reading put me off though. sadly others dont read into things as much, so sites such as this are very much needed,
I would imagine (speculate) that as part of getting an out of court settlement for whatever happened, she had to sign a non-disclosure clause. So no telling others how much pay-out to expect and no bad-mouthing the company from now on.
However, as they trade under 2 names, if they didn't happen to put both trading names on the legal agreement, then oops-a-daisy...
It seems to me they don't have to sneakily try and close the site down, if they don't like it. We have some of the toughest libel laws around. All they need do is to release the attack-lawyers.
Of course if theallegations happen to be true and they don't have a leg to stand on...
My friend had it about ten years ago, at Optimax Birmingham, and is still very happy with the results. She used to be very short sighted with moderate astigmatism, and doesn't need any correction now. The only problems she's had (after the initial healing period, which can be very uncomfortable) are occasional dryness, and some interference with night vision - she reckons that, compared to the hassle she had previously with glasses and contacts, it's a price well worth paying.
If your sight isn't that bad you may benefit less from the surgery, so would consider the downsides to be more significant. Obviously if the surgery screws up for whatever reason you might end up with major problems and no advantage, but there are plenty of people who are glad they had it done, they just don't run websites about it.
With respect, I think you'll find that Optimax and Optical Express DO run websites with forums for happy people (only!) to say so. You'll also find review sites (Trustpilot etc) where you will ONLY read posts from satisfied customers
I leave you to join the dots...
"My friend had it about ten years ago, at Optimax Birmingham, and is still very happy with the results. She used to be very short sighted with moderate astigmatism, and doesn't need any correction now."
Ditto, except it was me in London 4 years ago.
"The only problems she's had (after the initial healing period, which can be very uncomfortable) are occasional dryness, and some interference with night vision - she reckons that, compared to the hassle she had previously with glasses and contacts, it's a price well worth paying."
Ditto
"If your sight isn't that bad you may benefit less from the surgery, so would consider the downsides to be more significant."
Ditto
"Obviously if the surgery screws up for whatever reason you might end up with major problems and no advantage"
Ditto, ditto, ditto. Just like any other surgery, whether it's 'medical' or 'cosmetic'.
"but there are plenty of people who are glad they had it done, they just don't run websites about it."
I'd thought about it for years then a guy at work had it so I took the plunge. One of my friends had been interested and followed suit. All 3 of us were / are fine but my friend's wife then had it and they got one eye wrong. She had to wait 6 months for it to sufficiently heal before they could try again - got it right 2nd time. YMMV.
As with any medical procedure there is a risk. It's also not perfect like they would have you believe. Saying that I had my eyes laser treated when it reached the point that if I couldn't remember where my glasses were I was in trouble (about -3.5 diopters short sighted, with an astigmatism). I still use glasses for reading (age makes it harder to focus on near objects) but I'm good to drive without them and my distance vision is fine. In my case it was a good choice, YMMV.
Isn't laser eye treatment a medical procedure and therefore clinics are already covered by existing regulatory bodies eg the Care Quality Commission (for England) ?
( here's the registration for one Optimax clinic http://www.cqc.org.uk/directory/1-102643313 )
or the practioners by the Royal College of Ophthalmologists?
(PS I see that NICE published guidance in 2006 for the public about the NHS providing these treatments)
And?
The CQC was established in 2009, and my mother's care home (which we are very happy with) has told us that the CQC is only now getting around to checking up on them.
The examples of OFSTED, the FSA, the Press Council, OFCOM, OFWAT, OFGEM and doubtless other OFs, show that there can be a big difference between having a regulator, and effective or useful regulation actually taking place.
The CQC at present consists of just a call centre in Newcastle, and inspectors dotted around the country (who have no offices to speak of), the previous body used to have many offices where they would co-ordinate the inspectors on a local level, and chase up any under performing homes, care agencies and everything else they covered. Naturally someone (Labour govt.) decided to save money by cutting jobs and centralising the whole lot, and it just doesn't work anywhere near as well.
Anon as a relative was one of those made redundant when the local office shut down.
So lemme just check the facts...she ran optimaxruinedmylife.co.uk, because of bad service, and optimax paid her off...at which point she then sets up opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk and is now doing the exact same thing, except this time she has no real gripe against the company ?
How has nobody brought up the fact that she's just aiming for another pay off ?
Also hush on the Branston, you might give her ideas for her next one!
Have you got problems with your eyes too?
"What is not mentioned in this article is the fact that Sasha Rodoy’s own eyes and life were ruined by Optimax! In return for her compensation payment she had to sign a gagging order." http://www.optimaxruinedmylife.com/page26.php
The fact that this women has been paid out for her own damaged eyes but instead of walking away with the cash continues to campaign is admirable in my eyes (sic!).
If you do some more research on both websites you'll see she turned down payment for OERML.
Some people just can't understand that not everyone has a price!
I had LASIK performed a couple of years ago in the USA at a large hospital "aesthetic" center (rather than one of the cheaper choices). I now have 20:20 or better vision. The procedure was not very pleasant and the smell of "burning hair" (or more strictly cornea) was a little off putting.... There were cheaper choices available but I think with any surgery it is prudent to air on the side of caution.........
Last I heard, the DVLA were debating making you tell them if you've had laser surgery as they have had a number of cases of people who've had it done and then - years later - their eyesight has deteriorated below the acceptable standard again.
I'm very short-sighted. I could just about get home on foot without my glasses but it would take forever and there's no way I could drive without them. But I don't particularly want a one-way process of grinding down my own biological lenses (that we have no way to fix), especially if it could be even slightly risky or - worse - temporary.
Sorry, but given the amount of people I see every day wearing glasses, I don't think there's any reason not to carry on wearing them. There's no longer the schoolboy stigma of my generation. There's no longer only the hideous NHS designs. There's enough products to choose (from 1-day-contacts to full glasses). There's enough competition. You can even order online if you have a vaguely recent prescription.
For the moment, I'll just stick with glasses. They rarely get in the way of my life.
Waking up and being able to see without scrabbling for glasses, or being able to go to bed pissed and not worry about pawing a set of contacts out is a hitherto unrealised pleasure.
I had it done, and I can't praise it enough - I couldn't function without glasses, let alone get behind the wheel of a car.
Is there a "due diligence" argument that would form a reasonable basis for the existence of these websites?
Essential criteria would need to have something along lines of "justified cause" otherwise pecuniary advantage might become the single motivator?
The saddest part is that David & Goliath battles still seem essential and necessary for common good even in 21st century?
One thing GUARANTEED to make me steer clear of a company...
When they try to put the kibosh on negative opinions of their services.
As far as I'm concerned, an attempt to silence a complaint (rather than just respond to it, prove it's untrue, etc.) is worth at least 100 unqualified negative complaints.
What don't you want me to know so bad that you want to pursue this and spend that much money on silencing rather than, for example, just saying "We don't believe the comments on that website are true, we have a complaints process with which we're happy to deal with those concerns raised"?
And I don't really care if it IS your competitor hosting the site. So long as what is on it has a modicum of truth (if it doesn't you can sue their asses off for slander etc.), how does that make any difference? If your competitors can say enough that's true about you to make you run to the courts to get them silenced, I think I'd rather use your competitors instead of you.
One of my eyes decided to self destruct one day which required me to have laser surgery on the retina, (not to cure it you understand but just to stop it going bad).
It was going to be a painful procedure so I was given a local anaesthetic, trouble was that required having a hypodermic needle shoved through the pupil of the bad eye. Strangely it didn't hurt but the experience was pretty unnerving, as was the sensation of cold fluid rushing into the eyeball.
Not something I'd want to have to repeat.
trouble was that required having a hypodermic needle shoved through the pupil of the bad eye.
[wince, squirm, wince]
Nasty. I didn't get as far as you. Only a suspected detached retina, so only got as far as the eyeball pressure test. Where you have to sit, with you head in a metal cradle, while a manically laughing doctor pushes a metal probe into your eyeball to test the pressure. You can see it coming all the way, and you have to remain still, and not flinch.
I may be mis-remembering the bit with the manic laughter...
Back in the 70s I had soft lenses. The hard ones were less nice back then. Imagine blinking and feeling the hard edges digging into your eyes. Hence soft. Which used a cleaner with mercury in. After all, what could possibly go wrong? Turns out it's quite painful when you've not used enough rinse solution to get the toxic cleaning agents off the lenses - and are putting mercury directly into your eyes. I can't wear lenses any more - not that I have any inclination to try...
However I was talking to my Aunt the other day. Who's just had cataract surgery. And she's had a lens replacement, so apparently will no longer need the glasses she did before the cataract. I seem to remember it's an artificial lens, rather than an organ donation. I think the donor card only mentions cornea transplant?
I wonder what the relative risks of the two treatments are? Will lens replacement beat lasering eventually?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
