Document Showing Optometry Knows Myopia Is Reversible

Example from the extensive slide show presentation made to optometrists:

Context of this is a meeting discussing selling some fancy new expensive contact lenses to slow myopia progression. The screenshot, along with various other slides paint a pretty clear picture - retail optometry KNOWS that minus lenses cause progressive myopia, and maybe most interestingly even that myopia is reversible.

How do they know? Well, they just quote peer reviewed published clinical science, just as we do. What’s weird about this? Mostly just that they’re not as ignorant as they make us believe.

I’d love to share the whole document but I’d rather not get sued (or found in a ditch somewhere). At the same time though it’s fascinating, when people tell me that I need to conduct a study, that I need to find proof, that you could just point to retail optometry internal sales documents, that there’s no need, they already know.

Maybe some anonymous upload site? Thoughts?


I can host this file if you’d like. I really don’t think they can force me to take this down in the Netherlands. Glasses aren’t prescription here, you can just buy what you want, where you want.

Let me know if this is a solution. I have no problem taking responsibility for this, pretty sure that they can’t touch it here.


Yea the main issue is that they can claim ownership of it and it being re-distributed “illegally” could turn into an issue.

I like to play it safe.

True too, Netherlands, pretty progressive on some fronts!


You are right, I’d still be accountable for copyright infringement. Anonymous upload site is probably a better idea

1 Like

Which article is this from?

Is the ownership clearly stated and is the file copyrighted?

I was looking around at anonymous upload sites, really hard to get one of them. RapidShare and similar sites may also be possible, but the uploader has to registered there. With a bogus anonymous email address this may be a viable solution.


It’s no big deal for now. I’ve been sitting on this one for a little while, and there’s a folder of stuff that’s pretty definitively not flattering to the industry. The right time will come. :slight_smile:



I have another very interesting paper dating from 2010 from Queensland University of Technology titled “Human Optical Axial Length and Defocus” of Scott A. Read, Michael J. Collins, and Beata P. Sander.
The paper is free and can be shared without commercial purposes. It comes from ARVO journals.
Here you are the terms of licence:
I have not found the way to upload the pdf. In any case I can send it by email or you can sign up and look for it.
In order to show you if it is of your interest, here you are the introduction.

“PURPOSE. To investigate the short-term influence of imposed
monocular defocus on human optical axial length (the distance
from anterior cornea to retinal pigment epithelium) and ocular
METHODS. Twenty-eight young adult subjects (14 myopes, 14
emmetropes) had eye biometrics measured before and 30 and
60 minutes after exposure to monocular (right eye) defocus.
Four different monocular defocus conditions were tested, each
on a separate day: control (no defocus), myopic (3 D defocus),
hyperopic (3 D defocus), and diffuse (0.2 density
Bangerter filter) defocus. The fellow eye was optimally corrected
(no defocus).
RESULTS. Imposed defocus caused small but significant changes
in optical axial length (P 0.0001). A significant increase in
optical axial length (mean change, 8 14 m; P 0.03)
occurred after hyperopic defocus, and a significant reduction
in optical axial length (mean change, 13 14 m; P
0.0001) was found after myopic defocus. A small increase in
optical axial length was observed after diffuse defocus (mean
change, 6 13 m; P 0.053). Choroidal thickness also
exhibited some significant changes with certain defocus conditions.
No significant difference was found between myopes
and emmetropes in the changes in optical axial length or
choroidal thickness with defocus.
CONCLUSIONS. Significant changes in optical axial length occurred
in human subjects after 60 minutes of monocular
defocus. The bidirectional optical axial length changes observed
in response to defocus implied the human visual
system is capable of detecting the presence and sign of
defocus and altering optical axial length to move the retina
toward the image plane.”

Hope it helps


Yea that’s a good one. I think we have it in the science section of the blog too, somewhere. :slight_smile:

Ok, so Optometry knows.
I mean, no surprise, two great possibilities:
Either they don’t know, whicht means they’re idiots having no idea of their field of work
Or they do know, which makes them profit seekings a$$s.
Probably some (or even a lot?) in between, who got desprate by patients happy to pay and wear glasses, as well as the industry threatening to crush their career.

Would love to know what your plan is :smiley:
If you have such documents, you could only really use them if you’d sue them.
And how exactly do you publish anything at wikileaks? :slight_smile:
Is that even important enough?
Maybe we should set up som wiki-leaks site with stuff like this: How industry tries to srew us…

By virtue of supporting the FDA’s classification of spectacles as a prescription-necessary medical device, U.S. optometrists are admitting that minus lenses lead to iatrogenic lens-induced myopia. If minus lenses did no harm, they ought to be sold over-the-counter without a prescription like plus readers. But then optometrists would not have income from prescribing and selling glasses. Logically they shouldn’t be able to have it both ways, but that is exactly the situation they currently enjoy.


This is something I truly don’t understand. How is the U.S. - where everyone can supposedly do whatever they want - not allowing people to buy glasses with their own prescription? The only plausible conclusion I have is a conspiracy theory surrounding money but I don’t want to go there. It really seems like regulations are made/not made depending on what brings in more cash.

I think the US is slower to approve new drugs and experimental treatments compared to EU or Asia. On the flip side, there so many artificial colorings, flavorings, pesticides, and herbicides allowed in the US that are banned as dangerous in EU. Perhaps it is the influence of corporate lobbying in the US.


This document doesn’t prove that myopia is reversible. It just prove that lenses can induce SHORT TERM subtle changes in the axial length.

1 Like

I think it’s both a money and tradition thing as to why glasses aren’t sold over the counter here. You can argue it’s always been this way so why change it?

Also, plus lenses can cause increased hyperopia, which hardly anyone talks about. I think the only reason those are sold is because of presbyopia–lots of people need them. Also, I believe they get around the laws by calling them magnifiers.

No one has use for minifier lenses, though.


It works that way with our food, too.

1 Like

Yea but funny thing is helping people improve visionwould mean more glasses sold.

However I can see why the establishment won’t embrace releasing stuff on vision improvement en masse. It’s like well controlled clinical trial vs releasing to public who may or may not follow instructions

Us here plus others who seek help from the non mainstream optometrists are probably not representative of the general population of this planet. They’re afraid what’ll happen if someone tries and orders glasses wrong and gets a massive headache or smth