The roots of the trouble go back very far. When aniseikonia was first presented to ophthalmologists, serious objections were raised by the leaders of the medial profession. These were never properly answered. Instead, exaggerated claims for aniseikonia were made which could not be substantiated. The cool reception by the members of the profession led, in turn, to an exaggerated sensitivity toward criticism, and an approach to less critical laymen was made in person or through the press which would not be approved by the members of the medial profession, either within or outside the Institute.
A look at the past . . .. Arch Ophthalmol. 1999;117(9):1249. doi:10.1001/archopht.117.9.1249