{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019155844155844155, 'fraction_numerical': 0.001948051948051948, 'mean_word_length': 4.91362763915547, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Letters to the editor

EDITOR Peter Dwyer’s review of Optometric Management of Near Point Disorders in the subsequent issue of Clinical and Experimental Optometry’ to that in which I reviewed the same text2 was surprising, given that Mr Dwyer had indicated over dinner in Sydney in 1993 that he did not feel able to review Birnbaum’s book. I can only assume the latest review was written in an attempt to balance a perceived behavioural bias in my review. While I have the greatest respect for Mr Dwyer’s devotion to optometry and binocular vision, the views expressed in his review are in my opinion an expression of extreme misunderstanding and bias. His review is at extreme variance with others, such as the succinct and favourable review in Optometry and Vision Science,‘ the official journal of the American Academy of Optometry, which uses words such as ‘comprehensive’ and ‘excellent compilation’ and concludes: ‘These references combined with the author’s obvious knowledge and understanding of the area of nearpoint disorders makes this detailed and comprehensive book a useful addition to any optometrist’s library.’ The review by Michael Gallaway in the Journal of Optometn’c Vision Development4 is even more laudatory, perhaps not unexpectedly for a journal with a behavioural and developmental orientation. He states: ‘There has long been a gap between the so-called classical and behavioural approaches to nearpoint vision problems and vision therapy. The gap has been created by differences in language, perception and experience among clinicians, scientists and educators. Perhaps no other writer in optometry has done a betterjob of bridging this gap ... than Dr Martin Birnbaum ... anyone interested in treating nearpoint problems should own this book.’ As Mr Dwyer’s review is so opposed to these as well as mine and so dismissive of the book’s fairness and value, I wondered if I had been unable to sufficiently set aside my understanding of behavioural optometric concepts in my determination to be objective and balanced in reviewing a text knowing that, being written by an optometrist who admits to a behavioural orientation, it would be viewed cynically by a few optometrists who continue to reject any value in behavioural concepts. To reassure myself that I had not misjudged the book or misread Mr Dwyer’s review, I sought the opinion of a respected non-behavioural optometrist who had also read the book. He was strongly of the opinion that the book had been written as a reasonably comprehensive and extremely balanced review of near vision function, with the author as careful as possible to provide a fair treatment of all approaches to vision care. He strongly rejected the accusation that Birnbaum had been selective in his approach to analysis of research supporting various clinical approaches, commenting that Mr Dwyer seems to have reacted to the book as a behavioural text rather than the useful and comprehensive text he had read. In addition it seemed obvious to him, as it did to me, that Mr Dwyer had fallen for his own criticism of ~ ~