Alduce me to introlow myself

Hi There, let me introduce myself.

I’m currently 43 years old and I live in Germany. I have a typical myopia history, had my first glasses around age 3 because doctors thought everybody needs to be corrected to 20/15 from age Kindergarten, later reading too many books, playing on the computer as soon as they became cheap enough for a wider audience (my first PC was a x486, circa 1990), and of course I also hated sports.

I went to university and got a Diplom in physics, all the time my myopia increased until it reached around 9 diopters.

After university, I got fed up with all this and stopped going to the optometrist. I found some books about eye excercises and Bates and experimented a little with stuff like that but apart from temporary small improvements, it didn’t work. I was even desperate enough to read a very sketchy book by some guy who thinks myopia should be healed spiritually (I think he was called Lieberman), but I didn’t believe a word he said (except perhaps his observation that myopia seems to get better after taking off glasses for a while, but at -9 this probably is a bit too drastic)

For some reason, I had the gut feeling that using some sort of under-correction might be a good idea, so I bought myself some cheap glasses with about 1 diopter less. Unfortunately, I also left out the astigmatism correction which I now know was a bad idea. At least my myopia didn’t get any worse, also partly due to my brother who talked me into triathlon. I started going outside more to train for running and cycling and I had no progression for about 10 years.

Then we had our first child. Triathlon training slipped more and more and at some point, I more or less gave up on it.

Then, an even bigger disaster struck - my company gave me a smartphone. I started using it to learn Chinese whenever I was waiting for something, sometimes even when walking. Not surprisingly, my eyes started to get worse again.

Being so close to -10 and with the prospect of eyes getting worse again, I started to search the internet, to find out if anyone has a record of improving vision with a method that sounded halfway scientific.

I ended up finding several sources, actually. I found Endmyopia. I found Todd Becker’s blog. I found Cliff Hayes’ “No BS guide to vision improvement”. I found the myopia manual. So there was scientific evidence that vision improvement may indeed be possible.

Today, I try to go outdoor more (kids are also growing bigger and I hope we can do more stuff like riding the bicyles). I take breaks from work at least every three hours to go for a walk outside.

Unfortunately, I still have some residual double vision from my own attempts at vision improvement before finding Endmyopia, so I don’t have any progress to report at this point, but I sure hope that this will change with time. I surely don’t want to be stuck at -9 (or more) forever.

I don’t have any online resources of my own, but there are two resources from other people I also liked a lot (besides Endmyopia, of course):

Todd Becker’s blog
(Especially his talk “Myopia - a modern yet reversible disease” which can also be found on youtube)
Todd also managed to get rid of his glasses (not high myopia, but still…) and he advocates a method similar to Endmyopia with regards to the idea of using mild defocus and active focus for stimulus.

The myopia manual

This is an interesting resource, it was written by a German physicist whose children became myopic even though there was no history of myopia in the family. He started gathering all scientific information he could find and put the results into a whopping 390-page PDF. A lot of science stuff, but really interesting, because I can find support for many principles of Endmyopia there, and it is a totally independent resouce, no connection to optometry, medicine or anybody else selling something. I hope someday I can find the time to read the whole thing thoroughly.

All for now, excited to be here!

Cheers, Michael


Hey Michael

Thanks for your story. Curious about the double vision and astigmatism, I think I have a little bit of that too. But isn’t it just an ordinary part of the proces?

Best wishes Laura


Hi Laura,

Indeed, the double vision is part of the normal process when reducing. However, I already had some serious double (even triple) vision before finding Endmyopia, because I had tried my own poor attempt at vision improvement.

I had read several books (mostly what Jakey would call unicorn farming type) and I sort of had the feeling that they contain a lot of BS, but one general principle was common to most - they either asked to reduce or even throw away glasses. So, I tried to find the lowest feasible correction without astigmatism, that would give me enough clarity to function. SInce I’m working on the PC most of the time, it was probably about 1.5 to 2 diopters less than what I would have needed for full correction (plus, no cylinder correction). I used that single pair of glasses most of the time during the day, except driving and when I went out and needed to see more.

For sports I also had contact lenses (without CYL). So, in total I was using three different corrections with different dipoter ratios and different CYL correction. I think that’s the reason why I developed this double / triple vision.

When I found Endmyopia, I tried to find a Differential first that gave me about 50 cm of range, but it wasn’t ideal since I couldn’t correct to 20/20 anymore due to the double vision. The resulting values for my Differentials however were pretty close to my previously strongest glasses, and here I made the second mistake. I didn’t want to use anything stronger than what I previously had, so I just adapted the diopter ratio and the CYL correction to my Differentials to buy my Normalized but I limited it to the total strength (SPH plus half CYL) of my previous stronges glasses. In the end, the Normalized were only 0.75 dpt stronger than my Differentials.

When I started to go outside more, the double vision actually got worse, I attribute this to the fact that I was too far away from what i really would have needed. But I was still too stubborn to go up.

At some point, it got so bad that I couldn’t use my Differentials anymore, because the double vision made it hard to see my PC monitor… At that point I gave in and bought myself a new pair of Normalized which was again 0.75 dpt stronger (ergo, 1.5 dpt above my Differentials). To my surprise, I couldn’t use them, my vision was not in the slightest amount better than the previous Normalized. First, I struggled to understand this and freaked out a bit because I thought I may have some serious eye problem. However, after thinking about it for a while I realized that it was probably due to the fact that my eyes had actually improved a bit but not regularly.

As Jakey pointed out in one of his videos, biology is not perfect and the eyes grow according to stimulus, but not in a perfectly even, spherically accurate way. So, my retina is now probably some sort of “bump map” between two corrections.

Currently, I’m basically just waiting it out. There is no correction that gets me to 20/20 but on a sunny day outside I can read car number plates from 30m away, so it’s not too bad (unless the light is bad, in which case everything is pretty blurred). I estimate that my vision with Normalized flucuates between 20/25 and 20/50, depending on light.

I have the feeling that double vision has started to fade away a little, I now see one rather clear image and some blurry stuff on top of it, while earlier I had several semi-clear copies. Also, I have the feeling that my close-up vision is slightly improving, so I’m hoping to be able to step down my Differentials at some point to finally get my diopter gap into the normal 1-2dpt range.

Unfortunatly, I’m having a hard time measuring anything because the double vision is making it very hard to measure centimeters. ALso, on the snellen the double vision is interfering.

Wow, that was a long one :slight_smile: As you can see, I made a few mistakes before finding Endmyopia and then struggled to find a base line (also, some blur habituation may play a part). As Jakey always points out, don’t monkey with lenses. I, too, leanred the hard way…

What does your double vision look like? Do you also see several clear copies? Or one clear image and some blur on top? Or maybe two images with different intensity?

Cheers, MIchael


Michael… Thank you for sharing your experience with double/triple vision. You’re actually only the second EM member who has mentioned triple, the other being another cataract victim like me. Coincidentally I’m making strides with active focus through the cataract. Jake advised against smartphone use with no glasses at 12cm-13cm, one of my bad habits. I’ve been practicing AF at 20cm on print copy seeing clear text, a shadow image, and the third image is barely there. 20cm is still too close but was amazed I can actually read. It takes alot of blinking but feeling encouraged and extremely excited. The Oclumed drops and possibly the glutathione and carnosine patches are working. Good luck to you on that :hugs: DV is the most annoying thing.

1 Like

Hi Michael
Thanks a lot for you reply - very interesting to read! And some very good questions that I will try to answer. It is good for me to practice reflecting on my actual findings and practical experiences on this improvement journey - I tend to have my head in the clouds a bit.

So… Well, actually I have really not seen some good old clean blur for a long time, It is like the double vision is in the way. Or is double vision even the right word because double vision is sort of a binocular vision thing, right?! Just not to mix things up. By double vision I mean - as I think you do from your tekst - that I see more than one image on top of each other. Sort of shadows. If I look at a street sign fx - on a long distance the images of maybe the number 60 are equally clear but kind of transparent since it is on a distance. It is kind of 5 maybe 6’es and 0’s dancing around each other. The close I get to the sign, they will start to fall into each other to become just one - in the middle sort of - and the will get clearer. So I will se one that is clear and maybe two much lighter shadows to two sides of the 60. I dont the sides are quite consistent, sometimes it is on top, or bottom or to the left or right. Quite often in the bottom though.
I have noticed also that when I look at my IPhone with no lenses og glasses and look at the numbers (the time showing when the phone is locked), I see, right now fx, the numbers 00:32. I can see the number and there a just a lot of them around eachother, some clearer than others.
For close up with differentials, there is a clear image and then a bit of shadows around in, mostly in the buttom. Much more consistent that distance.
So I feel like this double, triple, multiple vision thing is right not more af a barrier that the actual blur. I am sure there is some blur underneath but I have to get a more singular image before I can really notice the blur. And I dont think there is a lot of blur with the strenght of lenses I am wearing these days (more on this in a minute). Actually, I have been wondering about something (head in the clouds…) - that maybe the first 4-5 diopters of myopia is axial elongation = ´clean old blur’. But after that, when you wear glasses at 4-5 and keep rising because you read a lot or whatever, your eyes having to find ways to compensate - maybe the eyeball cant just keep growing so the visual system starts tensing and twisting in all sort of other ways. What I can say is that wearing glasses and reading with them of -7/-8 is a whole different story that wearing -4 to -5. The tension is (was) huge in my experience and the visual image is so small and sort of far away - definitely like just looking at the world instead of being in it. If this theory has anything to it, maybe these tensing and twisitngs are the kind of changes that I am dealing with now being between -6 to -5 still and the lower I go I will get to the pure elogation and therefore the pure blur.
Gees, hope this makes som kind of sense.
Anyways, I started with -8/-1,75 and -7/-2,25 as far as I remember. Reducing that spherical and cylinder was not an easy task and I was a newbie, so I did monkey a bit also. My last normalized with 0,75 cylinder, I just could see properly, they felt really strange. So I dumped the cylinder and now I wear -4,75 and -5,75 for normalized. I dont see as well as you do, unfortunately, I can probably read license plates on 10 metres. I see everything, skys, building etc pretty sharp, but text - not so much. I have some fine moments, having been outside for a bit, but not too long (get tired), that I get almost clear vision and the bigger signs have no double stuff or shadows.
But I did also drop that cylinder a bit quickly during the last 1-1,5 years. So my plan is to not panic (like - am I giving my self to much challenge, should I go back to a higher prescription) and to stick to these normalized. Also because I really do think that I dont have a lot af blur underneath all those shadows and maybe that is why stronger glasses feel too strong. What I will do is be very patient this time and I will not reduce further before I have gotten consistently rid of al those multible layers when I look at text.

Boy, I hope this makes sense. it is a very interesting subject and very relevant for me right now.



A test lens kit could be handy there, just to figure out what the actual expected focal plane(s) would be. :slight_smile:

1 Like

Actually, I got one - last time I tried, adding SPH test lenses in front of my glasses, it didn’t improve much, so I didn’t put too much effort into it.

Maybe I should try again.

Okay, tried again with the test lens kit, it seems I can improve things slightly by adding 1-1.5 dpt, but no matter what I try for astigmatism, it doesn’t get me all the way to 20/20.

Cataract is something I also considered (feared), on the other hand I already had the triple vision when I went to my last checkup and they didn’t say anything.

I still have the pair of glasses which is .75 stronger than my Normalized, I think I’ll try to use that for bad lighting situations. Let’s see how that goes.

Cheers, Michael