From the sound of things, the contact lens creates an artificial protective cap, providing an environment for single-celled animals, via capillary action, and they acquire a stable environment, and either feed off the cornea, or produce harmful waste, or both, resulting in scars.
Even worse, it sounds like after a foothold is established, they become entrenched, and eventually no longer need the supportive bootstrap environment the contact lens initially provided. Based on the multiple relapses described in the article, it sounds as though her original infection never completely went away. So the infection can happen without contact lenses, but normal healthy eyes seem capable of fending off these attackers.
Normally, the eye is constantly flushing fluid across its surface, and I suppose the socket and inner eyelids must assist in fighting off invasive organisms, even if simply by friction and moisturization. Somehow, the artificial cap of the contact lens is different, holding the organisms in place, and offering stability and traction.
Even worse, it sounds like after a foothold is established, they become entrenched, and eventually no longer need the supportive bootstrap environment the contact lens initially provided. Based on the multiple relapses described in the article, it sounds as though her original infection never completely went away. So the infection can happen without contact lenses, but normal healthy eyes seem capable of fending off these attackers.
Normally, the eye is constantly flushing fluid across its surface, and I suppose the socket and inner eyelids must assist in fighting off invasive organisms, even if simply by friction and moisturization. Somehow, the artificial cap of the contact lens is different, holding the organisms in place, and offering stability and traction.