Today let’s look at Jon‘s post in the forum, talking about his discovery of myopia rehab, this site, and is initial experience with putting all the concepts into practice: Finally getting around to doing a little […]
Today let’s look at Jon‘s post in the forum, talking about his discovery of myopia rehab, this site, and is initial experience with putting all the concepts into practice:
Finally getting around to doing a little introduction here…
I forget what I was researching at the time that first led me into discovering that myopia reduction may be possible, but I think it was something that led me to gettingstronger.org and various hormesis related topics. I then discovered his writings on and experience with myopia reduction and then perused the forums over there, which I am pretty certain is where I found a link over here. All this was in the first half of 2014 (?), but I left it there for a while and saved the links.
Late summer, I came back and starting reading all the free content available here to try and assess whether this was legit. I am ever the skeptic and the proliferation of pseudoscience out there makes me cautious, but I am also adventurous and like to push the boundaries of what is accepted.
Some posts stated that all the concept needed were available in the free content, but just not as organized as the course. So I took this encouragement and started there and began educating myself and taking some initial steps to reduce my high myopia (-7.75 right, -8 left, with minor astig.) to see if the concepts worked for me, and if they did to proceed with the paid course at a later date to support the project a bit and fill in the gaps.
Well, they did, and so I did start the course around the new year. I also felt that I was plateauing around that time, so I hoped that the full course would help me discover a way beyond that.
Along the way I read many reports from other participants. The experiences from other high myopia participants especially were quite encouraging. And so I will share mine, in the hopes that it helps others at some point.
The journey down…
As a kid, after getting new prescriptions, I can remember being told on more than one occasion that the world would look like it is jumping out at me and that effect would be temporary as my eyes adjusting to the new Rx. I now see that what was really happening there was overprescription and my eyes subsequently reshaping to adjust to that. 
Note: For ease of reading below, I will only indicate my right eye diopters. My eyes have generally always been within about .25 diopters of each other, with a few outliers at .5 from time to time. Astigmatism has been a small amount (? -.75, -.5, and once positive values) and has come and gone in my Rx records over the years, going all the way back. Due to that I decided to go without astig correction for my differential and normalized prescriptions thus far and haven’t worn glasses with any since September 2014. Astig. corrections also aren’t represented in the summaries below (and in future posts to this thread).
Below is my journey down the rabbit hole. HS ended in 1997. College in 2000. And my career puts me in front of a PC all day so I now take the recommended steps to mitigate that.
And the journey back out thus far, complete with a trendline that I hope to keep to. 
P.S.: Your eyes aren't "broken".
It's your lens use and habits that keep making your eyes worse. And the massive hundred billion dollar optics industry loves it. They keep selling you stronger and stronger glasses, and tell you stories of some mysterious genetic "myopia illness".
It's nonsense. Your eyes are perfectly healthy.
Check out Annette's post in our Facebook group. From -5.25 down to the last diopter already:
Exactly.
To find out how Annette did this, grab a copy of my free (yes, darling freeloaders, don't pay me for this one) 7-Day guide. It'll teach you all the basics on how to start getting your eyes back. No sales pitch!
*No eye exercises, no Bates Method, no unicorn farming. Just science and evidence based stimulus and habit changes.
Reformed stock trader. Kite surfer, pilot, vagabond. Father. And of course - the last of the living, imaginarily bearded eye gurus.
Hi Nada,
Otis> As always, I totally support all your efforts. This is how, “I got started”, and why I object to the crude minus lens quick-fix”
Jon> The journey down…As a kid, after getting new prescriptions, I can remember being told on more than one occasion that the world would look like it is jumping out at me and that effect would be temporary as my eyes adjusting to the new Rx. I now see that what was really happening there was over-prescription and my eyes subsequently reshaping to adjust to that…
Otis> A great deal of science says that the first over-prescribed minus — is profoundly a bad idea. I just wish that the OD in his office, would say this to me, in a fair, impartial manner. Meaning, I WANT AN INTELLIGENT CHOICE PROVIDED TO ME, even if the OD hates the idea of successful prevention. That is my objection to being “kept in the dark” about successful prevention – by an OD who should, “know better”. There ignorance is killing my distant vision.
I just logged on and had to do a double-take. That chart looks familiar… I thought I had gone direct to my post accidentally. What a nice surprise to see this featured here. :-)
—
Something that journey down chart helps me see is how my myopia didn’t change much in the past six years. I’d need to check the records, but I think this correlates with the year when I switched to my current ophthalmologist who I’ve been pretty happy with. Indeed, I recall at my last appointment that she said my tested Rx changed so slightly that it didn’t make any sense to change glasses. She’s been pretty good in never asking me to buy glasses there. She spends more time on the medical side of things, making sure my eyes, retina, optic nerve, etc. are healthy, doing glaucoma testing, and explaining all of that well.
I’ve never asked about myopia rehab there, so I don’t know what their experience is and views on the topic are. No eye doctor that I’ve seen in person has ever mentioned it to me as an option.
Talking about this topic will be unavoidable at this summer’s annual checkup, since I’m pretty sure my eyes are going to test out a couple diopters better than last year. (It will really feel real then with the independent measurements.) I’ll go into it with an open mind and I’ll see what happens. I look forward to an intelligent discussion and maybe she’ll ask me to share some resources and research if she’s not yet well-versed on the topic.
I think it’s best presented as something new, the way forward, additional therapy options, rather than the way even this site talks about optometry often. Removing the possibility of making the practitioner feel like they are told they are wrong, or having to choose sides, this can help keep everybody on a positive note.
Agreed 100%. I don’t think there is a big conspiracy (so-to-speak), so much as rehab probably just isn’t a focus (or not taught at all?) in schools and it’s generally accepted to not exist (at least by us laypeople until discovering it). Practitioners have more or less been doing the same thing for so long (as an industry) that it takes a lot of convincing (in the form of large studies of success cases) to change the tide and explore new options (even if those new options have been use by some for decades, they might be new to most). I can’t know any of this for a fact, but that’s my suspicion.
And is the science not as well studied (although some supporting research does seem to exist) as compared to other areas of medicine? It may need enough/more confirming studies and data to build a critical mass to the extent that practitioners are more comfortable in recommending rehab, and thus not (just guessing here) worried about lawsuits for trying something not yet established as a best practice.
Plus there is the fact that prevention and rehab don’t fit the instant gratification model that the general public (at least here in the USA) demands. Real improvement takes time and effort, so it’s a tough sell no doubt, but it would be nice to at least be presented it as an option (if the doc is aware the option exists). I never did ask about it though, I don’ t think. I wonder if this is ever taught as part of CME.
I’m just speculating here, but I have to believe that the better practitioners believe they are doing the right thing and aren’t biased by financial interests and may simply not know about all the new? possibilities to present to their patients. Or do know about it and are keeping up with recent developments, but need more hard science to stake their reputations on it, maybe seeing this as still in an experimental phase.
I think Alex has mentioned some of what I post here throughout the site to present a more balanced view at times, but I agree there is sometimes an air of being against the mainstream too which may turn some people off if they don’t explore with an open mind and listen to everything that is presented here which is more nuanced.
Hi John,
I try to stay out of this “fight” for just prevention. You are correct, in saying that the average OD will fear “a legal kick-back” if he attempts to “prescribe prevention”. For the most part, the OD is taught that an prevention (at 20/40, and -1 diopter) is simply impossible. So they believe what they are taught, and ignore all science that shows that prevention is possible. I did a lot of investigation of this concept. But what convinces me the most, is that OD parents will make no attempt to help their own children with prevention. That is the most sad and tragic truth of this difficult situation. I always believe, on the basic of pure science, that prevention is both wise and possible. But the OD, who will not even help his own child, will not help you. This is why it is almost a waste of time to ask that question of an optometrist. He feels that successful prevention is totally “out of scope” for him, and that does end the discussion. This is so bad, that you can not even get the National Eye Institute to even discuss this issue. They should “open their mind”, because people who are not, “in their system”, are successful.