Eyeglasses and retail optometry are scams

[Modified]

But if everybody could end myopia just by getting weaker glasses, we'd all be doing it.

I'm not sure that undercorrection will lead to improvement, but it seems clear that excessive use of near focus contributes to progressive myopia in some or most people (and not at all in others). I think it could be reduced enormously if you could force kids to use reading glasses and computer glasses even when they have enough near focus ability to do without them.

 

[The Moog]

Not seeing any science here, perhaps it would fit better in the conspiracy forum...

 

[Tippit]

Is there any verified proof that myopia has been "ended" by using this method?

I have prescriptions verifying my original diagnosis, which converted to Snellen is roughly 20/300 and I can read a Snellen to about 20/30 now, uncorrected. I still have most of my original pairs of glasses.

 

[8enotto]

I had glasses as a teen. Then I lost them and got by just fine for 30 odd years.

Now I need reading glasses in a 1.25 non prescription to read books. They cost 2 bucks at a discount store.

The body changes, the brain adjusts. No vitamins or youtube science required.

 

[Tippit]

How do you know “everyone” can do this?

Since eyeglasses cause progressive myopia, anyone who wears glasses can theoretically reverse it. If people wear glasses for other reasons, like astigmatism by birth defect or injury, then they're out of luck, since even if they improve their myopia, they will still be dependent on glasses for the other condition.

The rate of improvement is roughly .25 diopter/3-4 months, so anyone with severe myopia would be looking at a few years with this method.

 

[Tippit]

I'm not sure that undercorrection will lead to improvement, but it seems clear that excessive use of near focus contributes to progressive myopia in some or most people (and not at all in others). I think it could be reduced enormously if you could force kids to use reading glasses and computer glasses even when they have enough near focus ability to do without them.

This is true. There is evidence that using plus lenses for extended computer use has a prophylactic effect. If so, it's probably only a quarter to half diopter for emmetropes. I use Gunnar gaming glasses for computer use at night, which have +.2 diopter amber-coated lenses. I personally think that wearing any lenses for long periods of time runs the risk of developing lens-induced astigmatism, because of how residual light refracted through the glasses stimulates the eye. So visual hygiene is even more important, that is, 20-20-20 rule, taking hard breaks every hour or two and going for a walk outside, and generally living more outdoors.

Just as an aside, myopia rates in Asia are off the charts, especially among kids and teenagers. They spend ridiculous amounts of time reading, and sitting in front of computers or phones, they tend to get diagnosed early, and then they do the same thing with normalized glasses, causing hyperoptic defocus and compounding the problem.

 

[RolandRat]

I have prescriptions verifying my original diagnosis, which converted to Snellen is roughly 20/300 and I can read a Snellen to about 20/30 now, uncorrected. I still have most of my original pairs of glasses.

That doesn't seem to be verified proof of the claim.

 

[Modified]

This is true. There is evidence that using plus lenses for extended computer use has a prophylactic effect. If so, it's probably only a quarter to half diopter for emmetropes.

Nah, the goal should be focus at infinity, so +1 if you are 30 inches from a big screen, higher if you are closer to a smaller screen.

I personally think that wearing any lenses for long periods of time runs the risk of developing lens-induced astigmatism, because of how residual light refracted through the glasses stimulates the eye.

I don't see any evidence for this. What do you mean by "how residual light refracted through the glasses stimulates the eye"?

 

[Myriad]

Even if the treatment you're advocating is safe and effective, it doesn't imply that existing treatments in the form of corrective lenses are unnecessary, let alone scams.

I had to address this question years ago, when I had a condition and my doctor prescribed some strong medications with potentially troublesome side effects. I read about the condition and learned that I could probably cure it by losing weight instead. So I did. I was a little confused as to why my doctor hadn't even mentioned weight loss as an option.

But a little thought, and a very little research, provided the answer. From the doctor's point of view, telling patients to lose weight does no good, because most people won't do it. Keep in mind that the doctor cannot diet or exercise for the patient. All he or she can do is tell the patient to diet and exercise. And if that patient usually won't do it, that means that no matter how effective a treatment losing weight would be if the patient actually did it, telling the patient to lose weight is an ineffective medical treatment. Why should the doctor waste his time applying an ineffective treatment? It's not even particularly ethical.

The same issue would likely apply to Steiner's methods. "You can either get the corrective lenses you need to see readily at all relevant distances right now, or you could do eye exercises for the next 30 months." How many people would not only choose the latter option, but successfully carry it out? Good for you for doing so, but seriously. Five percent, maybe? (And do they then have to keep doing them indefinitely after that, to avoid relapsing to needing glasses again? Look at statistics for weight loss successfully kept off long-term.) How many of the other drivers on the highway exercising their eyes instead of already being able to clearly see both the traffic ahead and their dashboard instruments should I be willing to put up with? What toll in additional accidents might we expect, as the downside of reducing expenditures on eyeglasses?

 

[Tippit]

Even if the treatment you're advocating is safe and effective, it doesn't imply that existing treatments in the form of corrective lenses are unnecessary, let alone scams.

So called treatments which compound the symptoms, and which generate profits for those selling them, are scams, period.

I had to address this question years ago, when I had a condition and my doctor prescribed some strong medications with potentially troublesome side effects. I read about the condition and learned that I could probably cure it by losing weight instead. So I did. I was a little confused as to why my doctor hadn't even mentioned weight loss as an option.

You were confused that a doctor chose a revenue-generating prescription over a non-revenue generating one?

But a little thought, and a very little research, provided the answer. From the doctor's point of view, telling patients to lose weight does no good, because most people won't do it. Keep in mind that the doctor cannot diet or exercise for the patient. All he or she can do is tell the patient to diet and exercise. And if that patient usually won't do it, that means that no matter how effective a treatment losing weight would be if the patient actually did it, telling the patient to lose weight is an ineffective medical treatment. Why should the doctor waste his time applying an ineffective treatment? It's not even particularly ethical.

Omitting the prescription that results in the fewest side effects and the best health outcomes for the patient on the basis of the assumption that the patient won't follow the treatment is unethical, even putting aside questions about revenue. It's not your job as a doctor to presume what I will or won't do.

The same issue would likely apply to Steiner's methods. "You can either get the corrective lenses you need to see readily at all relevant distances right now, or you could do eye exercises for the next 30 months." How many people would not only choose the latter option, but successfully carry it out? Good for you for doing so, but seriously. Five percent, maybe? (And do they then have to keep doing them indefinitely after that, to avoid relapsing to needing glasses again? Look at statistics for weight loss successfully kept off long-term.) How many of the other drivers on the highway exercising their eyes instead of already being able to clearly see both the traffic ahead and their dashboard instruments should I be willing to put up with? What toll in additional accidents might we expect, as the downside of reducing expenditures on eyeglasses?

That's a good question. Steiner recommends everyone uses fully corrected lenses for anything potentially unsafe, like driving. The flip side to that question is, what's the total cost to society for enduring an industry that physically handicaps people as a matter of business, undoubtedly causes more accidents than it prevents, and creates physical dependencies in exchange for revenue in the tens of billions?

There is no doubt that this isn't for everyone. Lots of people are ok with being dependent on glasses. They wake up, put them on, or they spend a few seconds inserting contact lenses into their eyes and go about the rest of their day, no big deal. But for anyone who has to do this they know that there are other annoyances and costs that they have to put up with. The treatment isn't really that difficult, and is mostly passive, so that argument doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Myriad]

Omitting the prescription that results in the fewest side effects and the best health outcomes for the patient on the basis of the assumption that the patient won't follow the treatment is unethical, even putting aside questions about revenue. It's not your job as a doctor to presume what I will or won't do.

It's not an assumption. It's an observation that all primary care physicians and most specialists make during their careers, and is also backed up by statistical studies on outcomes. Doctors should and do use their individual and collective knowledge and experience when making decisions about recommended treatments for patients. If you're so special that their knowledge and experience doesn't apply to you, you're special enough to investigate alternatives for yourself.

Which, in fact, is what you did, as did I in an analogous situation. Good for us. The difference between us is, I don't feel any need to trash talk extremely successful and well-proven treatment options just because some alternative worked for me one time.

That's a good question. Steiner recommends everyone uses fully corrected lenses for anything potentially unsafe, like driving.

That means just about everyone with vision impairments needs corrective lenses sometimes, and lenses that are used just some of the time cost just as much as ones worn constantly. (That's not true of disposable contacts, but I regard those as something of a luxury/vanity choice; medically, glasses are a sufficient corrective option for everyone except some performing artists and certain individuals who cannot handle eyeglasses and would be even less competent to use contacts.) So what's the point in bellyaching about the costs?

The flip side to that question is, what's the total cost to society for enduring an industry that physically handicaps people as a matter of business, undoubtedly causes more accidents than it prevents, and creates physical dependencies in exchange for revenue in the tens of billions?

Evidence that correcting people's vision with lenses is physically handicapping them? Evidence that corrective lenses cause more accidents than they prevent? (Saying "undoubtedly" without a rationale does nothing to reduce my doubt.) Evidence for the creation of physical dependencies?

These arguments sound a lot like the ones against mandatory seatbelts and motorcycle helmets. "Waah, they cost money and it's safer without them!"

 

[Modified]

Even if the treatment you're advocating is safe and effective, it doesn't imply that existing treatments in the form of corrective lenses are unnecessary, let alone scams.

More to the point, it's not enough for near work. If I read correctly, Tippit is suggesting .5 diopters of undercorrection. Reading, using the phone, and to a lesser extent using a computer will still require near focus. Reading and close use of the phone could still lead to myopic accomodation in some people (probably).

A .5 undercorrection is fine for most situations, except maybe night driving. If you're young and have otherwise normal vision, that might still give you better than 20/20.


Edit: OK, I read the OP more carefully. That is what he did, and probably not as much undercorrection as was suggested by the stuff he read about, and he also mentions even weaker correction for near work.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Haha he's a scam artist.

It's not even an original scam. Ron L Hubbard originally claimed dianetics auditing would improve eyesight and remove the need for glasses.

Simultaneously, most photos of Ron Hubbard had him wearing glasses.

 

[Modified]

It's not an assumption. It's an observation that all primary care physicians and most specialists make during their careers, and is also backed up by statistical studies on outcomes. Doctors should and do use their individual and collective knowledge and experience when making decisions about recommended treatments for patients.

My father was an independent optometrist (he retired about 12 years ago), and he was a believer in myopic accommodation in children and young people, at a time when the highly suggestive studies we have now did not exist. He would and did suggest undercorrection for children. I don't think he saw any reversals of myopia, but in his experience it would slow the progression. Typical undercorrection would be .25 to .5. The 20/50 referred to in OP would be .75 to 1, depending on which conversion algorithm you believe. Of course that doesn't mean you get vision as bad as 20/50, unless you are 20/20 fully corrected, and most kids are closer to 20/10. Still, that level of correction could be a problem for school and would be a problem for sports.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Where is William_Bates_(physician)^WP when we don't need him?

He is very possibly where LRon got his ideas about vision and AE van Vought who was an early associate of LRon was a believer. Reports are that it did not work form him.

 

[arthwollipot]

I am extremely grateful to my optometrist who gave me the glasses that allow me to read this forum. I have age-related presbyopia, and I watched the deterioration of my near vision over the last ten years. Now I always wear glasses when I'm reading or using a computer.

Verdict: not a scam.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Haha he's a scam artist.

"There is no cure (for myopia), that can be provided by a medical person."
- Jake Steiner - Myopiafree


Jake Steiner knows less about eyes than my cat. He's a con artist with no science background. I was going to have my eyes done in Moscow in the mid 80s.

Radial keratotomy (RK) is a refractive surgical procedure to correct myopia (nearsightedness) that was developed in 1974, by Svyatoslav Fyodorov, a Russian ophthalmologist. It has been largely supplanted by newer operations, such as photorefractive keratectomy, LASIK, Epi-LASIK and the phakic intraocular lens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radial_keratotomy#History

 

[arthwollipot]

I am extremely grateful to my optometrist who gave sold me the glasses that allow me to read this forum. I have age-related presbyopia, and I watched the deterioration of my near vision over the last ten years. Now I always wear glasses when I'm reading or using a computer.

Verdict: not a scam.

Just in case anyone thinks my optometrist works for free.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I had glasses as a teen. Then I lost them and got by just fine for 30 odd years.

Now I need reading glasses in a 1.25 non prescription to read books. They cost 2 bucks at a discount store.

The body changes, the brain adjusts. No vitamins or youtube science required.

I got glasses when I got out of college.

Went back to school and stopped wearing them. After I got out of school the second time it took me quite a few years before I needed them again.

I blame it on those early CRT monitors we were using back when I first graduated. But more likely, it was just using my eyes differently at different times.

ETA: Either that or all the Vitamin C I was taking in college. Whiskey Sours for your health!

 

[Venom]

Did Vitamin C modify the shape of your eye?

If I recall that is a major consequence of near sightedness and the actual eye becomes progressively more elongated.