2 year EM anniversary 🎉 and been to the opto! - Tiii’s Update Journal

Hi all,

especially hi to the most guruistic beard on earth! :slight_smile:

(First wanted to write: most beautiful - but hey, there’s @Sean in LeMeow… :wink: )

The 14th of September is now in my calendar, as Jake’s first 7 day email. Guess what, Jake sent me a how’s-it-going-email – thank you, Jake!
So I found EM about a year ago – does anyone know how I can check when I first visited a website (in safari)? Because it took me some days until I found that “start here” button :smiley:

I started with -5,25/-5,00 & -0,75 cyl both eyes (contact lenses). For my anniversary, I’ve finally checked some older prescriptions and even found higher astigmatism in contacts, as well as -5,5sph and -1,25cyl in glasses. Guess what, those prescriptions are changing, sometimes both eyes had the same prescription, then someone decided there’s no such thing as a dominant eye…
I’ve checked old photos as well: Wearing glasses since age 13! That’s…OMG, almost two thirds of my life….

I’ve made an appointment at my opto, it’s an anniversary after all :heavy_heart_exclamation: (and my opto is cool!):sunglasses:

Been there in January, where they confirmed -4,25/-4,00 & -0,75 cyl both eyes. There’s a boy (the owner) and a girl (joined later, cause business went well and he couldn’t manage alone anymore) and I had my appointment with the girl. She was telling me it’s presbyopia kicking in, but checked my eyes thoroughly. At that time, I already knew that the boy knew more about reducing, so this time, I made my appointment with him.

That was yesterday, and I had an interesting chat!

Somehow, I feel like I didn’t really get an eye test, to be honest :smiley:

He put +0,25 lenses in front of my eyes (while looking at Snellen – no dark rooms there, btw), then -0,25, then -1,00, which felt too strong (I’ve just reduced to -3,00 R/L normalized). That was it :smiley: I asked about my astigmatism, so we did the autorefractor test, which said: -0,75 each eye. He said autorefractor would be the best way to check astigmatism – oooh, does anyone believe that? It’s for sure NOT the best way to check sph, but then, he didn’t claim that. He also put -0,75 astigmatism correction lenses in front of my eyes, but that felt very uncomfortable.

He said he’d probably correct me with -3,75 & -0,75 cyl to full correction – so I’m definitely down another -0,5 again! :smiling_face_with_three_hearts: And did you notice, didn’t mention or question that I’m wearing the same R/L now! (Though my centimeter readings have a slight difference).

As that -0,75 cyl correction felt too strong, I actually think it’s closer to -0,5 cyl – maybe I’ll finally use Jake’s astigmatism measuring tool one day… (or I’ll leave something for next year’s anniversary :D) Interestingly, opto-boy said that he doesn’t worry about me dropping cyl correction “that would be the smallest problem”. At the same time, he was totally amazed that my cyl correction had reduced (prior to EM!!!, without me even noticing!) at all, because the form of the cornea “is a given, you’re basically born with it, it can’t change – so it’s amazing and great that it did!”. I was just thinking: “WTF!!!”, but decided not to quote Jake’s astigmatism-is-created-by- optometry-rant ;-), because we were having such a nice chat. And even though he’s nice and supportive, we had about 40 minutes, it’s a business, and the next client was already waiting.

I posted somewhere that my acuvue lenses, actually ALL acuvue lenses, as they advertise it, have UV protection. So I asked opto-boy, and he turned into what I imagine Jake to be like when he posts his rants :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: (opto boy even has a beard now, since recently :smiley: ).

So this is Opto-boy’s rant on Johnson & Johnson:

'Oh great, they advertise UV protection! Let me tell you a secret: MOST KIND of plastic blocks UV rays! You basically cannot wear any glasses or contacts that DO NOT provide UV protection! It’s like those guys advertising’ margarine is free of cholesterol’ - of course it is, ALL plant based fats are! I always tell my clients: If you pay 200 EUR for Ray Ban glasses, you are paying for that image, your feeling, only! And no Tii, I have no clue what those “EU-certified UV protection” labels are good for (except making money) which they put on sun glasses and claim to be so important, because yes, the cheapest piece of plastic does the same job! Look, I have a UV testing instrument here, let’s put those test lens kit lenses in and check if they let any UV light pass: See, zero! Sure, give me your plain- plastic-bicycle-insect-protection-glasses (that say: no UV protection) and let’s check them: See, zero UV passing!

Johnson&Johnson are so incredible! Not only do they advertise UV protection, they also sell/sold THE VERY SAME LENSES as daily lenses, 2-week or monthly lenses – depending on how much money they think people have in a given country… They have changed that, don’t sell the same lenses as daily or monthly anymore, but are still impossible! How do I know? Well, their very own sales people told me, I know them for long!’

Also, on myopia:
Sais they are into myopia prevention very much. Frank Schaeffel, he sais, is the leading German Prof on this, advertising a combination for atropine and plus lenses at kids – low atropine being more effective and less side effects (but still all going back to myopia when stopped – totally useless, I guess… - oh my, the internet sais, ladies in middle ages used to use atropin to be more attractive - as dark eyes were considere attractive…) Working together with “the only eye doctor in town” who actually minds, who is not as “horribly arrogant as those chief university doctors”, claims to be the only optometrist in town who’s into myopia prevention and doesn’t throw me out. :smiley:

Knows about pseudomyopia and ciliary spasm. Sais cause for myopia is part genetic + close up.

On child myopia prevention: The rule is 3-7-12 – forgot what exactly, but basically it’s ZEREO close up till age 3, some books and stuff till age 12, and from then on, a little screentime only under supervision (his 8 year old is not allowed screens). Rant: Poor kids should do something useful after school and homework, but now they just stare at screens!

On reversing myopia and me:

He actually asked if I do anything other than reducing, assuming eye exercises, and what I do. Told him about mainly differentials for reading, and my (whups, very limited) efforts on screen brakes and active focus. He knows all those chicken (and ape and so on) studies, but didn’t agree on the focal plane behind-retina-stimulus-thing (maybe he misunderstood, not sure). Sais “it’s not that easy!”.

He kind of consoled me in advance, which was pretty weird: ’You know, don’t be sad if you only get to -2,5 or so in the end, what you’ve achieved already is incredibly amazing! I’m so happy for you!’

Told him that thanks, but I’ll get back to 20/20 all the way, so no thanks! :smiley:

He admired my intrinsic motivation to get rid of myopia, and sighed: ‘What do you think people say when you suggest them to reduce their prescription so they don’t see perfectly anymore?’. I had just told him about endmyopia.org (because he asked for it! J ) and on Jake’s program for optometrists - so Jake, if Thorsten from simply should ever contact you, that’s my opto-boy! I warned him slightly about those little rants, and he went something like ‘I know, people without education (in optics) tend to not use scientific wording and usually have a, well, different, manner of expression’. I still laugh so hard on this! :rofl: Aaah, hope he will just love Jake’s little rants and manner of expression! :smiley: (I certainly do! :heart: )

Then I asked if he is wearing contacts – he is! Having a little PRESBYOPIA! (guess he’s around 40)
Told him about how the method is great for both. Reply: “But it’s a totally different animal! It’s hardening of the lens, eye exercise doesn’t help, neither eye supplements!”.

Asked him to let me know what he thinks about EM, I’m sooo curious if he will! :smiley:

He also checked my eyes, if they look healthy, like enough oxygen supply, so I asked if there is any corneal abbreviation – I think he was a little shocked :rofl:, stating 100% sure: ‘There is no way to get that from wearing soft contact lenses! Yes, maybe from hard contact lenses, if they do not fit at all!’

I’ve recently searched a little on the internets for myopia, causes and all. (I admit I’ve mostly been a blind trusting sheep until know! I did check some of the studies Jake quotes at the beginning, but mainly just trusted and decided to give it a shot – maybe because it went into the same direction like those 2 bateish books, but made much more sense. Maybe because the science seems to be right. Maybe because there is no other real option around and maybe I’m just a little crazy :slight_smile: ).

It’s really incredible: Found a paper where they quote all those chicken and all studies. So THEY KNOW what those lenses do! Know about being outside, breaks, near work, that it’s not accommodation. It seems like they have ALL the available info, all the relevant pieces – but some major brain parts must be missing because they seem so unable to conclude the only one logical thing! Well I guess those brain parts exist but have been sacrificed to funding or something….
But I don’t get it, talking to opto-boy: He has the same info, he’s running his own business, he is into myopia prevention – but doesn’t see what’s right in front of his eyes! How is that even possible?!?! I don’t get it! Or maybe I’m just very spoiled because the first thing I found, when looking for myopia a year ago, was that blog by some ranting beardy eye guru sitting in the jungle/on mountain tops/hiding in the ocean/surely whispering from deep fountains, misty forests and other weird places as well, putting all the biology, studies and easiest way out of myopia right in front of me.

BTW, the findings didn’t come surprisingly: My best cm measurement was 40cm – but that’s me being able to read, with lots of blur, so of course I’m below that. I really don’t mind it being “just” 0,5 since January – even though I’ve reduced 3 times now, but last time was just two weeks ago – because that’s what Jake predicted: bigger drop in the beginning due to ciliary spasm, and then things slow down – but I’m happy to make progress!! :slight_smile:

For all of you in Germany: If you’re unhappy with your opto and want one, you could try simply.de and see if there’s someone close by – service is cool, but not the cheapest ones. Now that I’m writing this: Maybe I should check how much I’d pay for just lenses and cleaning stuff…

Whups, this is quite long now, sorry!

Cheers to all,



@Tii_Chen… that’s great progress. You should do a video…your enthusiasm bounces off the screen…haha :hugs: congratulations and looking forward to hear what your opto thinks of EM.


Thank you! :slight_smile:
Me and my face in the internets - else, I would have :wink:


Well stated, keep going for the long term!

1 Like


I may be getting a phone call with Professor Schaeffel next week. Actually, I want to get him to consider research related to human focal distance management / reduced lens methods, to shed more light on the axial shortening debate.

But I didn’t even know he advocates the plus. Searches on him are cluttered with horrible mass media articles that may be misrepresenting him, or highly specific papers that are often interesting, but don’t contain general info like that. So I’m basically contacting him blind, hoping that I don’t step on some political landmine before even getting the point across.

TBH, I don’t think he misunderstood. It probably really isn’t that easy. In nature, large-scale hyperopic defocus only happens until accommodation has kicked in. But it doesn’t quite look like accommodative lag is causing myopic shift. Such a mechanism based on “behind the retina” hyperopic defocus wouldn’t have worked in our past evolution, when there were no glasses to mess with your peripheral vision and thus introduce lasting hyperopic defocus. Yes, locally, there may be an adaptation to defocus, and ideas like the Zeiss MyoVision glasses that avoid stronger refractive power off the optical center of glasses may be a good idea, but overall, it looks like something more complicated is going on, maybe a mechanism that accounts for accommodation.

Anyway, thank you very much for the info, and sorry for the tangents!

You’ve made great progress! It’s always great to hear from people who are in for the long run and have continuing progress! Honestly, I just can’t rid myself of that nagging doubt that progress might stop one day. So thanks for the motivation! :grinning:

BTW, would you mind telling where in Germany you and your friendly optician are located? I’m from Munich, so depending on where he is I might be able to visit that shop some time…?


Exciting!!! I can’t wait for my one year, I know I’m going to be just as excited as you… Congrats :sunglasses::tada:


Thanks, Chrissiek! :slight_smile:
Looking forward to your post!

1 Like

We wants them video Tii_Chen, gives us the precious! :wink:

I mean, you might have seen my ugly mug, couldn’t possibly be any worse than that :smile:


Haha, no it’s my turn to: Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? :smiley:
How cool is that?! How come you are just contacting him blind and don’t know much about him? Let us know how it’s going, please!
So, opto-boy told me Schaeffel would be one of those guys who is a real scientist, who’s more into science than his ego, one who’s already changed his point of view after resaerch showed he was wrong - which sounds pretty cool, like you could actually have a chance!
I googled him yesterday as well, a bit. Seems to be into how the eye is working, sais that lag of accomodation can’t be the (only) reason (but may play a minor role in a few cases), describes different feedback loops within the eye.
It’s so fascinating: We know so much, but in the end, still have no clue!

You are for sure right on the “isn’t that easy” part! Bioligy is - in school, I never thaught I would ever say that! - an incredibly fascinating thing! Now, I’m honestly considering to read up some basic biology.
I also understoot his “not so easy” as a reply to reversing myopia. And of course, it takes time and differentials and all - but assuming Jake ist not faking all other accounts here and progress updates except of mine, in real life, it does seem to be quite easy! I mean, it’s working for so many! There’s this big thing nobody understands and is said to be irreversibel - and there comes our eye guru and just proves them all wrong…

When did you start again? Nagging doubt - interesting, I don’t have that! Of course, when I started, I couldn’t know, but I told myself: What can I loose? Money for differentials. Is it probable that this will hurt my eyes? Not really, but I if so, I can still stop. Do I believe all those progress updates? I don’t know, but one way to find out…
So, I started this as an experiment, figured I don’t have much to loose (but this sounded so much more profound than bates, finally offering some explanation, studies and all).
And now, I just see: IT WORKS! INCREDIBLE! Something I never thought possible is just happening!
So, why doubt? It IS working right now for me. Why should it stop, as long as I keep good habits? But if it stops, so what? I’ve reduced more than I diopter, it already makes a huge difference! I’ll still have achieved way more than so many others, who are still on their way to higher myopia! So really, nothing to worry about.
And honestly: WHY should it stop? Why should I doubt my body/bioligy? Do I doubt that my heart is still beating in a second? Well, I’m mostly healthy, so nope, I don’t! That’s the beauty of this process: You start new habits, and everything else is just happening on its own. It’s like breahting and eating… just that miracle that life itself is! :slight_smile:

Check simply.de - they’re mostly in NRW/Hessen, I’m from Cologne.


Heheh, well why not try it? Seems worth a shot. :smiley: Okay, “blind” was a bit of an overstatement. Many things are built to some degree on Prof. Schaeffel’s work. He has been at this for decades, conducted many of the animal experiments, and worked on countless myopia studies, as well as summarizing work that is very useful to understand myopia. He is also leading the EU’s MyFUN research project, who are doing some of the most impressive stuff right now. So while I’m “blind” in terms of personal and organizational knowledge about him, it’s not like I randomly tried to contact just any professor out there.

So I asked for a meeting. Well, he offered a phone call so far, so that’s something I guess. But he seems to be very busy, so let’s see how it goes.

Sorry, I should get an intro thread going. I only started in late March of this year, with Todd Becker’s method, and over time incorporated Jake’s advice into what I was doing. I wrote this monstrosity of an eye improvement post on Reddit, you can find plots of my improvement over the last six months around the top.

The doubts kinda have to do with the lack of axial length measurements (I have my first measurements though, curious if it’ll change over time!) and the stories of plateaus, for which there isn’t a conclusive explanation. But I know there’s little reason to be pessimistic, since there are also people like Matthew Ely, whose improvement just goes on and on! And Jake, of course; -5 to nothing is incredible!

So onwards, to end myopia! :upside_down_face:


Thanks - lots of people have very good improvements, they just don’t post them as much as I do.
What seems to happen is that as people “get it,” they look at the site and FB page less because they’re spending more time living their lives and less looking at screens.

Look up Johnny’s posts in the FB group. The ODs are telling him he needs something like -3, yet he has been out of glasses for a good while now. There are more like that but there, they just don’t always show up in posts.


Yes, I think so, too! Was the same with me: Checked the FB group a little, but FB really sucks, so if it wasn’t for LeMeow, I’d have replied to Jake’s 1 year email, and if he sends one the year after, but no post in FB (also due to those pls messages you get after a post like that).


So, because you started to improve your eyes, you just contact Schaeffel? That’s pretty cool!

True, no axial measurments. My opto can’t do them, said maybe at University Hospital (if you can get an appointment there, I didn’t ask). Where do you get yours? That would be really cool…
I’ll read your post!

Exactly! :+1:


Your opto-boy said it too: he seems to be a real scientist. That means he should be interested in having his opinions challenged. I guess there’s not much cost in trying.

I got a bit lucky; I told various people about my eyesight interest, and one of them told me he has a connection to his neighbor company, which sells equipment for eye doctors… :grin:

Long story short, I convinced one of the owners to measure my eyes with two versions of the Zeiss IOL Master he happened to have standing around. They weren’t the newest model, but since I could use two of them and they agreed within 20µm or so for both eyes, it looks like my first axial length measurement is precise.

If you want to do it too, look for doctors that plan cataract surgeries. They are the ones who usually have biometric measurement devices. The official way isn’t cheap though; I got one offer for 200€ per measurement. Which might be per eye; that would be 800€ just for a pair of measurements on both eyes. Looks like the pricing issue is because I’d be “abusing” part of a specialized cataract-related procedure just to get biometric data.

1 Like

You are right, let us know how it’s going! I’m very curious! Good luck!
Also, thanks for the info on eye measurements - I’ll have a lookj around :slight_smile:

1 Like

Since you asked, I finally got a hold of him, and was able to exchange a few words.

As expected, he is very dismissive of it all. I won’t be able to meet him until at least December, even that is doubtful, and he deems all refractive evidence for possible axial length reductions as not trustworthy.

However, he left a very specific option: a time-series of axial length measurements that shows reduction with a very significant P-value. Specifically, he said any variant of the IOL Master would be a suitable measurement device.

So, it looks like I can force a showdown of reduced lens methods vs mainstream consensus if I improve while making lots of measurements using this class of devices… of which a used one is for sale nearby. It’ll cost me at least a couple thousand euros, and I’ll need a place to set it up and another person to operate it, but it’s possible. Just something that most people wouldn’t go through the effort of doing.

Let’s see if I can make this happen. I don’t want to give up on it. One side has to be wrong here, and you know how nerds are when somebody is wrong on the internet. :nerd_face:


Thanks for sharing, so you got that phonecall! Congrats! I’m really impressed by what you’re doing! :+1:

Did he say why? What’s wrong with those chicken studies?

Have you made up your mind yet? Will you do it? You could do some fund raising. If all of us kittehs here give 1-2 euros… Do you have the space, or someone you know? What about the other Bavarians here, you could team up, create a monthly - weekly, did he specify time series? - let’s-measure-our-eyes-and-prove-them-wrong scientific-like event!
Anything else you need to consider to make it as sccientificaly valid as possible? Documenting what you’re doing? How acurate does that have to be, what factors to consider? Anything you must avoid?

Sorry, should’ve been more precise there, I was talking about adult human axial length reduction.

Also, maybe “all” is a hyperbole, but it was really hard to get him interested in anything that could plausibly be just a random person messing up. Maybe other alternative people talked to him in the past and had abysmal measurement standards. He hinted at some dodgy things that he might have encountered.

I mean, while it’s kinda insulting, I can imagine where that’s coming from. There are a lot of “improvement” stories that fall short when you actually test acuity. He probably ran into people with great claims before, and got disappointed.

Heh, good to see you’re hyped! :smile:

For now, the owner will allow me to make some more measurements. He ran both devices over a friend and me this time. I can now better estimate the precision; there is more deviation than with the two measurements last time, but it’s still quite precise. If I want to take a device home to do a really tight measurement series, the cheapest offer so far is in the 4-5 k Euro range for the older device. I can afford that, but I’m still holding off for now. They let me do these nice and detailed measurements at their place, using more/better devices. :nerd_face: Also, I like to think such things through and look at more stats first.

It’s going to take a bit longer to see what comes out of this. Could be a few months, but also depends on what my eyes do. :eye::eye:


But - you did it!
Yes of course, I’d take my time as well. And the way you’re doing it for now is really great! Your eyes gonna do great! Please make this a topic or keep me posted here once you’ve got some results, like in 6 months or so!


Will do! In a little under 6 months, I’ll have my own 1 year improvement anniversary. That’ll be a good time for a summary.

And if there’s a really interesting result, I’ll make noise anyway. :nerd_face: (I’m also continuing my autorefractor series, which has a measurement every three weeks for half a year now.)