@jakey Are you sure that the academics (and optometry industry) actually think the way you do for adults and long-term changes?
There are different types of axial length change. From what I’ve heard, many academics seem to believe in short-term axial length change, dominated by the choroid and some very limited trickery the eye can do. Then, only in children, this is associated with longer-term differences in scleral structure. They also seem to think that it’s all about slowing down progression, not stopping or reversing it.
Note how almost all animal studies are on very young animals, and how the people working in the industry and research often wear typical minus lenses, just like you’d expect for someone unable to improve. They do sometimes prevent myopia on their children, though.
There’s also reason to be careful about interpreting the optometry industry’s opinion as some coherent set of knowledge. Optometry is generally psycho about myopia, since they constantly avoid admitting guilt. Unless everyone there is a sociopath or an idiot, there has to be a fair amount of confusion and willful ignorance to explain the current situation. Morally, this is isn’t a big difference to the sociopath stance (since either way, consequences for others are of little concern). But psychologically, it’s a very big difference. When faced with overwhelming evidence, the sociopaths would go “lol OK” and not care, since they already suspected it anyway. But someone who had been just going with the flow might turn around. And should too many people start doing that, any knowing sociopaths would switch sides immediately, since they have nothing to gain defending a sinking ship.
Sure, any data you’d release right now would probably be ignored or “explained away”. But there could be some interesting result hidden in this data, or maybe it could be used to improve clarity to a point where influential intellectuals become interested. It could also become the “last straw” if published together with other data and a comprehensive analysis of the situation. So please continue gathering; it might make more of a difference than you’d think right now.
In any case, I’m not giving up on the research side just yet. There’s a mountain of unanswered questions, and nothing even close to a conclusive model how eye calibration works. And hundreds of millions, if not billions of people affected! If that’s not worth looking into, what is? At least, I’m going to try for improvement during an axial length time-series that lasts months, not just hours like in that one study everybody is citing.