Hi Sam,
There was a drastic mistake, or assumption made a long time ago. What is always measured it a relative refractive state. I it is almost impossible to accurately measure a "length". So let us talk about actual measurements - not about "conjecture about length". Here again is what the minus lens does to all natural eyes.
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wildsoet/images/neg_lens_induce_myopia.swfWhat is measured, is a refractive STATE, that changes objectively, when a minus 3 is applied. What is INFERRED, is that the "length changed". Maybe it did - and maybe it did not. But why does that matter? I doubt that you will find any pure-science that will dispute this image of the actual normal eye. But I would emphasize that this is "speeded up", and that the change of the natural eye is VERY SLOW.
If you accept this picture from science, then, if worn when your refractive state is -3/4 diopters, you can get a change of +1 diopter, that will slowly get you back to naked-eye 20/20. That is what Todd did.
so if a children with a refractive state of say +2.5D is given a +2.5D plus lenses, he gets more and more farsighted and his eyes get....shorter and shorter?
i have never though of this before, so it does seem very likely that the eye shape does change. and so axial myopia, deemed as "incurable", "impossible to reverse" may actually be reversible although very very slowly.
If a child is +2.5D and he wears a +2.5D plus lens and does close work all day. Does his positive refractive become even more positive at the same rate compared to that of a myopic child wearing a minus lens (becoming more negative)?
