Hacker News Reader

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.

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?

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

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.

> 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.

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.

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

I've learned to read the comments to any posted NYT article, than visiting said article itself.

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.)

Haaaaah, I see what you did there.

Wink wink.

Internet rants might sound smarter-than-thou, but I read the articles for myself:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17290745

I value my time somewhat so if something sounds the least bit dubious, I peruse the top comments first.

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.

Only reason I read comments for NYT articles is to see if anyone has a scathing criticism about the article, and there usually is.

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.