So, you not only are not backing down from calling me a liar, but you're trying to say it's okay to call me one because lots of people on FR lie? That just digs the hole deeper.
Just because YOU were willing to take the very real (1 in 20) chance of having your vision worsened or your eyes permanently damaged to avoid having to wear glasses (for a few years, anyway, you WILL have to wear reading glasses later on, no matter what), does not mean that EVERYONE is willing to take that risk. Withholding information from people to try to sway them to have an expensive procedure that has a 5% chance of harming them is a form of lying that's much worse, IMO, than giving people all the info up front, good and bad, and letting them make up their own minds.
You MIGHT try reading that ENTIRE Wiki article, not just the parts you like, and maybe some other info, before you go around calling everyone who expresses reservations about the LASIK procedure a liar.
I explained to you the reason that it looks like the 5% number isn’t accurate as a figure of the percent who have had their vision reduced.
Army still does not allow SF HALO Operators to enter training if they've had lasik. Same for Navy divers.
Many PDs now allow lasik procedures for applicants if they've had the procedure done more than one year prior.
“for a few years, anyway, you WILL have to wear reading glasses later on, no matter what), “
You really do not know what you are talking about. Not everyone experiences hardening of the inner lense as to require reading glasses. I know plenty of elderly people that do not require reading glasses. Even at my age I still don’t.