This was kind of hard for me to post, but please bear with me to the end…I think it’ll be worth it. I’ve always had a bit of a knack for uniting people who disagree on things, so here goes!
@jakey, You’ve stated recently that you no longer automatically recommend parents immediately bring kids to a behavioral optometrist for myopia management due to what seems to be rampant overdiagnosis of other vision conditions. That’s a valid issue.
And at the same time, someone in that profession (Dr. Steve Gallop) has claimed that he can no longer recommend Endmyopia due to “limited understanding of the visual process” and “elusive” program details. Also a valid concern.
Both comments are out in the open online; one in a video by Jake and the other in a blog post by Dr. Steve on his website. I have had no private dialog with either of you guys about this topic, and don’t plan to!
That said, I think I know what is going on here…please bear with me, and do not take any of this personally…I’m only offering what I think is a likely large source of the inherent difference in methods, and thus, disagreement over how worthwhile each other’s methods are.
I think both parties very well may be missing analagous key parts of the other’s methods. This may sound a bit far-out, but I think it may have to do with active focus, believe it or not. Rather than lack of understanding, I think the communication is the issue.
I think active focus is actually a key point here in the communication issue, but not in the way people might think at first glance. When Gallop claims Steiner’s method misses out on the process and how to use lenses effectively, I think he may have an issue with the active focus part. Jake himself admits active focus may be elusive at the beginning.
I have an idea. I think there’s a reason the optometrists don’t chase active focus, but it’s actually not that they don’t utilize it; rather, I think, instead of trying to create willful change in the focusing, I think they are doing it through their vision therapy and possibly lens selection too. In other words, creating the prerequisite visual conditions under which “clear flashes” (automatic active focus) would occur on their own. They use lenses and therapy to modify behavior, which then modifies vision (e.g. produces active focus).
But at the same time, the issue with the optometrists’ methods is likely that creating those conditions that encourage the visual system to function as well as possible, requires that they diagnose every sub-optimal visual performance issue. Even though they are pro myopia reduction, these people are still optometrists, and are taught to diagnose and fix whatever they find and deem suboptimal…and thus are likely biased to believe that process is necessary for improving myopia to substantial degree.
I think the solution is for us to figure out exactly why active focus and clear flashes occur, and what conditions encourage them with the least effort, and for the behavioral optometrists to realize that Endmyopia, while by no means perfect, does work, and contains many open-minded, scientific DIY practitioners interested in always learning more and adding to their knowledge!
I really think both sides mostly agree on the mechanics of the process, but don’t always realize it!
Whew! Tough to write and tough to read, but I think this is an important discussion. We need to celebrate each others’ similarities, and in doing so will find we agree on more than we thought, and can learn from each other (DIYers and professionals).