Active vs Passive Strategies

@Jakey 's EndMyopia involves active focus and outdoor activity to induce myopia regression or reversal back to 20/20, as well as slightly-reduced correction for distance and greatly reduced correction for near work. This requires lifestyle or habit changes for many people (finding things to do that don’t involve staring at a phone or screen, switching to appropriate correction for both distance and near work.)

There are some other non-invasive passive methods that might work (not as well, but might work) for some people.

Haberfeld method:
Plus lenses + Base in prism for near work and meals “teleopto lenses”
Eliminates convergence and accommodation
Halts myopia progression
Some cases of myopia regression
Published by Dr Haberfeld in Journal of the American Optometric Association in 1934

Otie Brown Method a.k.a. Plus Lens Therapy / WWII Pilots’ Method
Low myopes or people likely to develop myopia wear plus lenses indoors
Prevents myopia and may induce myopia reversal in some people
Supposedly discovered by pilots worried about failing their medical vision screening
First demonstrated by Dr Jacob Raphaelson in 1904
[Jake has seen this method cause unwanted problems for some people]

Russian Study
Myopia Prone Kids given +1 D of myopic defocus for all activities except swimming
Nobody develops myopia, some shifts away from myopia observed

Screenshot 2021-06-19 00.05.30

russia myopia preention study.pdf (643.4 KB)

1 Like

Don’t even remind me. When that was popular for a year or so, my inbox was a :rage: mess.

That I’d do if my kids end up having to do too much close-up for study and we notice less than ideal distance vision.

Logical. Also though prisms seems to always be part of support request messages. Not in any way scientific, just one of the words that get me thinking “oh not that again” when I see it in a message.

In most cases, seems most minimal possible corrective intervention = better.

Also obviously, bias, limited sample sizes, Jake’s small brain, etc etc. Always up for having people decide to try things and report back. :grimacing:


Haberfeld’s idea is interesting to me because it’s kind of “maximum strength differentials”. He says [paraphrasing] you’ll get enough accommodation and convergence looking at a price tag in a store or when you have to glance down from the lecturer to look at your notes. For any kind of extended near work he wants the “teleopto” differential glasses on. Supposedly he was able to send a bunch of early stage myopes away because after a couple of weeks their cilliary spasm had released and their pseudomyopia had gone. For the people who were still myopic he then gave them a separate pair of distance glasses (only for distance.)

I think Haberfeld was advocating for a different use of prism, and the reason it usually gets prescribed these days is to band-aid other vision problems that could probably be solved with vision therapy. (Which might be why whenever it comes up in your inbox it’s trouble.) Any tool that can be used properly can also be used wrong. :nerd_face: :sunglasses:

The simpler something is the harder it is to screw up. There’s definitely a lot to be said for that idea.

1 Like

of particular interest is the fact that the method is almost a century old. Odd how we seem to be pedalling backwards, from fairly logical albeit lacking in rigour, to complete disregard of the possibility.

People say, there are no conspiracies, people are just ignorant. The establishment actually seems more invested in keeping its dominance than we are in improving our eyesight, and that is saying a lot.

1 Like

I was just thinking about that, how it’s been demonstrated for 100+ years that there is a problem with using minus lenses for close-up (it causes myopia), and strangely Dr Bates is the only one who is somewhat widely known (in “alternative” circles) today.

There seems to be real hostility to anyone who demonstrates that myopia can be cured or reversed. Dr Raphaelson says he stopped telling people he was a doctor and just decided to “sell spectacles” because the medical community was so hostile to the idea that you could use “the wrong kind of glasses” to fix myopia. The wrong-headed idea that the cure for myopia is “minus lenses” seems to have been deeply embedded in mainstream medicine even in 1904.

Dr Haberfeld presented his data to the Optometrists in their journal and seems to have been quicky forgotten.

The World War 2 pilots did their biohacking to pass the vision test and nobody ever heard about it until Otis Brown came along 50 years later, and then nobody listened to him.

It’s pretty amazing that society can do the wrong thing for 100+ years to the point that we now have a “genetic” myopia epidemic!

1 Like

It’s also a good suggestion to where we should set our expectation with Endmyopia. We (who are into this thing) tend to think that sooner or later the floodgates will be opened and everyone will know about myopia reversion and the world will change… but maybe not :slight_smile:

1 Like

I think that will happen. I have an e-mail from Mikhaila Peterson about podcasts. A friend of Paul Saladino’s just shot over an introduction. And there’s more than a few more that while not going for “everyone”, definitely would/will increase exposure quite a bit. At this point the list of people we could reach (if I ask for favors and intros … which I don’t) is pretty large.

No hurry. Better we go slowly, learn from things like Improvement Pill, let the community grow, it goes however it goes.

But still with a sideways look at the possibility that it will blow the F*K up. :yum: