But doctors/psychologists/technicians are the people most of us turn to for scientific answers. They're our filter for scientific info. And many of them are, indeed, ego-invested jerks who accept happily that lack of peer-reviewed evidence = debunking. It does not. This doctor was no more jerky than any other I've been to, and really, he was a lot less than most. At least he took the time to listen to my question and answered with respect. Most want to write the scrip and get out.
I think you're very right, kcab, that money and power have a lot to do with it. I think it's in the doctors' interest to medicalize problems whenever possible.
We are considering vision therapy. I'm not diving in without careful consideration, of course, but I'm also not willing to write it off because it hasn't been studied well enough. Every treatment or therapy was new once.
I'm doing what I can to figure out what exactly is going on with DS6 before we spend a dime, of course. But I have enough anecdotal evidence from people I trust to think that it might be worth the money *if* he has a specific sort of problem and *if* we don't have to spend a lot, even if what he's getting from it is a specific sort of attention from a specialist more than a real "treatment."
Caveat Emptor, basically. Even with medicine.
