Myopia control is a tiny, tiny niche.
Tiny to a degree that @endmyopia basically rules the whole lot of it, if we’re going to look at cumulative amount of diopters reversed. That’s the only metric that matters. And no question, we get results, where most others are continuing to grasp at straws. But … there’s a but, more on that in a moment.
Meanwhile, are we too humble? It’s actually true. Over the years I’ve met, talked to, conspired with, argued theories with most professionals and so-called professionals who dip their toes in the still murky waters of myopia control.
Myopia control meaning, those who have an interest, be it financial or otherwise, in stopping myopia progression – and do acknowledge that it’s both necessary and possible.
Everybody in this arena has to be treated nicely, I’ve been thinking. It’s like if we all lived in a desert, even the crappiest little weed is a rare bit of life in all the otherwise dead sand. So even those who believe in atropine drops (yikes seriously, atropine is a terrible idea), at least they acknowledge that myopia control is a real thing. Those who like Ortho-K, as sophomoric (and overpriced) ideas as it is, they too. Myopia control. Little weeds in the desert. They’re precious.
And if we were to segment the tiny niche of myopia control into holistic / natural, and commercial / product selling, it gets even more weed-friendly.
Natural myopia control boils down largely to a) the Jakeness (think diopters reversed) and b) those who believe that myopia progression can be slowed without poison drops and squeezy contact lenses. Option a) here is the only one who says, with some authority (and spite, possibly), that myopia can be reversed in just about any health person, at a rate of about 0.75 diopters per year. Others do agree, but as far as a working method you can apply, with proper support, this is literally the only stop on the track.
There are books. I’m not discounting the books. I just never met anybody who actually reversed multiple diopters based on reading a book (ok so I’m discounting the books a little). There are also some interesting weeds on the book author front.
Some of the more distributed version of that like to talk about the idea of “fogging”.
Fogging basically, going the opposite direction of our core premise here, of active focus. They say that the ciliary muscle relaxes, by wearing a ton of plus, and just inducing all sorts of blur. It’s a little Bates-ian, if you ask me. Not a whole lot of persuasive logic on why that’s supposed to work. They say, it relaxes the focusing muscle. Whenever I suggest that looking into the distance and focusing on writing there will relax the ciliary, I don’t quite get a convincing counter argument of how “fogging” is a better plan than using your eyes as intended. I guess humans love to overcomplicate things.
Also, the foggers don’t seem to have much of a track record of actually reversing multiple diopters of myopia (which at the end of the day, again, is all that matters).
I’m really a bit touchy when it comes to these things. I’m opposed to blur. Blur is trouble. Blur is telling your visual cortex that something uncool is afoot in your biology. Blur creates stress. I haven’t seen one tangible bit of evidence that blur improves eyesight or otherwise meaningfully impacts vision health. I don’t like the fogging idea. But I do like open mindedness to controlling myopia.
This is where the tiny niche is in a challenged state. Everybody is hanging on to their ideas, be it fogging or Bates or eye yoga, even if someone (equal parts brilliant and insightful, and not at all with a weird looking face) comes and shows them a better way. Surprisingly I’m finding lately that the most easily swayed of *all* groups involved in myopia, from the hippie foggers to the atropine dispensers, are actually, guess who? None of them. Rather, the best audience I’m finding, is … mainstream optometrists. Gasp, right? I know!
It is a little shocking. It does make sense though, when you think about it. There are more of them for a start. Also, they have the larger amount of biology eduction on their side than a lot of the fringe hippie types. And speaking of hippie, they haven’t veered off too far into left field yet. Maybe, just maybe, this is all good news. Since changing the tone of the site I’m still getting into just as many arguments with the Bates and the foggers fans, but there’s been literally dozens of highly productive conversations happening with mainstream optometrists.
Housekeepin’: Watch out Twitters, we’re about to hit 40k followers. *preen*
Youtube in comparison is still a tiny little seedling. Persistence though, as you learned already from sorting out your myopia, always pays off in the end. In this case of video, the tiny trends at least, are encouraging. 100% possible with your support and all those thumbs up for the videos!
Onward and upward!
Cheers,
-Jake
