Fanatically curious kitteh reporting in!

@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.


Sure, go for it. I’m not discounting that you could have good luck with that route.

For me it’s simply a matter of economics (of time and benefit). I’d rather put up ten videos and a few blog posts that reach tens of thousands of people, than get into obscure argument with somebody who just wants me to be wrong (that will honestly never end, I’ve tried). There’s always the next “but the animal was young” and “but was the axial change over a long period” turn. Always.

You could spend less than USD 10k and have a nice article written in a major mainstream publication and reach even more people. I could spend a bit of time working to make that money and then with that make a huge impact. Time well spent. I don’t do that since I’d rather not attach my name to major dissent of the status quo. Tried the academic route and it was super frustrating - entirely opposite of the experience just talking with people who wish they had better eyesight.

My way for sure isn’t the only way or maybe not even the right way. I just enjoy that and the mere mention of academic arguments makes me irritable. :smiley:


Thanks for the advice, Jake! I’ll make sure to not get trolled by people who dismiss me with the next excuse after having been shown the evidence they asked for.


Just based on your blog post and posts here, one can really feel that you are the right man for the job! Analytical, detailed and thorough and based on facts.

To me optometricians are like pharmacists (or doctors). It is easily confirmed that glasses (or an operation) make you see better instantly or medicine (or an operation) numbs the pain. Does it go to the roots of it, what caused and what fixes it. Not really. Until it makes monetary sense for somebody to prove an alternative works, nothing usually happens, and one study sort of only proves (assuming it is done correctly) one thing happened at one time.


Also reminds me, this related post of actual measurement results: Does The Eye Physically Change From Improving Eyesight?

I get these e-mails every once in a while (not often, people don’t really go to the trouble of going to the ophthalmologist for these measurements). Because of the e-mail volume I miss a lot of opportunities to post these unfortunately, usually I’ll think “wow great one, I should remember to post it” and then 400 other things happen and it gets buried. Like this one here: - I try to post updates as much as possible, but there are so many that I just don’t get to it.

Maybe threads like this will remind me to especially catch ones with eye state change data.

Point though is, the barrier to very tangible data is quite low.


Very inspiring story you got there… I wish i could write like you :star_struck:

1 Like

@jakey That first story is very interesting! But also unexpected. The anterior chamber changed, but total axial length did not?! Though I guess that topic belongs in its thread.

The Facebook story is also really cool, in that it shows another case where someone needed more correction to improve. (I Revived my Facebook zombie account to read the post; not a fan of that site.)

Thank you for keeping an eye out for good stories and measurements!

The barrier to data is… moderate, I’d say. Most people don’t go through the effort of getting detailed measurements at appropriate times. I haven’t found a single intentional axial length reduction so far. Maybe it’s not that easy after all; it took me quite a bit before I had figured out where and how to measure axial length. Also, internet stories often have issues: people aren’t exact in their wording, don’t talk about error margins and precision, leave out important details, etc. As great as progress reports are, there’s usually a lot of guesswork needed to interpret them.

Which is why I want my measurements to leave as little wiggling room as possible. There should be only three possible outcomes: either I fail to improve further, or there’s improvement that is not from axial length change, or I can confirm axial length reduction in adults.

@Majidul :grinning: Thank you! Truth be told, my writing was unbelievably horrible in the past. If you want to work on general writing skills, I can recommend Roy Peter Clark’s book Writing Tools.

1 Like

@Varakari Just to compliment you on your enormous knowledge and writing skills. :slight_smile: Keep it up. We learn from it.
Also love @Jakey stories, the openness and good explanations. Thanks again! :blush: