|
A contentious question in optometry, this. The observation that the old practice of undercorrecting for juvenile myopia has now been superceded by the practice of correctly matching the degree of myopia is generally correct. At least, I think so. The interesting point about all this is that the number of studies is minuscule, and the ones that have been performed have been conducted on laughably small numbers. (Be honest, would you want your child to be a guinea pig?)
As far as I understand it, the issue is sort of about "accommodation spasm" (of the ciliary muscle that controls the degree of deformation of the lens) and whether this leads to enduring short-sightedness in later life and will then demand permanent treatment with standard corrective lenses, or in fact whether this can be "trained out" of children by using different ("opposite") lenses that will temporarily exacerbate the problem. Behavioural optometry. I think the profession is pretty much divided. There is a majority of skeptical optometrists who don't believe in it, who point out that most myopes simply have relatively elongated eyeballs and not much of a problem with the lens per se. Being by nature skeptical they don't make much effort to become familiar with the nitty gritty of the opposing theory. On the other side is a minority of practitioners who obviously know the details about how their theory is meant to work and who specialize in this area. They also have cultivated a clientele base that they don't want to jeopardize.
No one is unbiased, facts are few, vested interests muddy the waters.
Now, who out there believes in homeopathy?
Cheers,
Brian.
PS Not me, some other Brian. Throw your tomatoes at him.
|