First off, I'm not nieve (sp?) enough to ignore the fact that many people in this discussion (and by this I mean in the wider world rather then just on this thread, are both pro- and anti- CRT) have agendas. Never-the-less, I waded into google to see what I could turn up.
Doing a Google search turned up the usual sites, many of which I suspect are penned by "supporters" of CRT, but they're interesting none-the-less. It's interesting that the FDA apparently feels that the technology of CRT is significantly different from Orthokeratology and thus shouldn't be labeled with that term. I'm sure many people will point out that the FDA is hardly non-political, so we'll let that go.
I did a search on "corneal refractive therapy Ophthalmologist" to see if many Ophtamologists (I wouldn't even be able to spell the word without your help!) agreed with your conclusions. Apparently
this one does not , although I don't know him from Adam, nor what his stake is in the discussion. Another case developed ulcers in children and you can read the conclusions yourself -- they are ambiguous at best, and potentially intentionally so.
The article
Orthokeratology: A Heated Debate Continues seems to describe the treatment and the affects in fairly neutral terms, including numbers. I guess it highlights that CRT, like any medical treatment has side-affects and risks. None of it is slam-dunk. So we should all go into it with "eyes wide open" so to speak. 125 Shifter, I'd be interested in what you decide to do and how it works out for you.
