Myopia-manual .de

Despite the domain name, it’s an English site. I was searching for myopia scientific papers when I found it and it seems really interesting. It’s not a website, but more like a starting page for a free (almost) 400 pages ebook about myopia.

Just a short summary from the site which will explain why I’m linking it here:

Old-fashioned medicine was stating, that myopia is rare and exclusively inherited, and to prescribe glasses is all what you can do, and that the prevention of myopia or the prevention of the progression of myopia (or of a resulting blindness) is not possible.

The site and eBook is made my Dr. Klaus Schmid, from his about section:

I am a physicist by education and became interested in myopia because of the severe shortsighted-ness of my children – without myopic ancestors. I started to collect information to help them, and finally wanted to share all this material with everybody who is affected by the problem of myopia. A special motivation was also the experience from my “professional life” that really neutral and unbiased views are rather rare, but highly demanded by the “clients”. As a consequence, this paper is intended to be as neutral and unbiased as possible and rather complete.

There is no way I will read the whole 400 pages book, but I skimmed the book and checked some section which I found interesting.
The book is take every kind of method and opinion about myopia, links scientific literature and discuss them a bit with as less partiality as possible. So it can be interesting just because of this. He also has a large section about minerals and vitamin and body parameters which I think can also be interesting to some.
Ultimately he emphasis good habits (similar to the Endmyopia recommendation) and also using “differentials” (he use the term plus glasses which I think is a bit confusing but I understand how he come to this). He does not recommend normalized and also no discussion about active focus.

So don’t misunderstand me I don’t recommend his book or endorse him, but I think it’s a valuable resource and has it’s place in the scientific part of Endmyopia. Maybe someone who is courageous enough could write him and let him know about Endmyopia :slight_smile:


Nice Find! I have downloaded the whole manual for reading at my leisure, and printed out the recommendations, which indeed are very similar to the endmyopia ones. I do not lack the courage to write to him, but have so little experience of the endmyopia method that I would not be the appropriate one to do so.


I read the pdf back along and link it in my profile. It’s like a summary of scientific literature on myopia.

Yea, but not as bad as “differentials” in my opinion. differentials, different, making a difference? It could more of less could mean anything, a different colour perhaps, sunglasses maybe?
Differentials is a made up word, it’s jargon. It would be in the interest of communication to eliminate as it is a barrier for new people.


While I agree, I think if you say “plus glasses” most people will think about glasses with positive dioptre. And I think it’s better to not understand it (which most likely will result in some searching or asking) than misunderstand it (which result in getting wrong glasses and thinking the method does not work)
But yeah, a different name maybe would better, like “close-up glasses”. Honestly why don’t we call them as close-up glasses? :slight_smile:


Hahah… this is a pet peeve of mine too. Especially because differential and normalized are mathematical terms, but the usage here is unrelated to the mathematical meaning. This abuse of formal terminology reminds me of “quantum medicine” and the likes, so my mind kinda resists using these words.

You can usually get by with “computer glasses” “near glasses” “reading glasses” or similar terms though. @halmadavid’s “close-up glasses” is also easy to understand.

But once it’s out there, terminology is hard to change, so I’m not sure if there’s much point in making a ruckus about it now.


I have started reading the manual, and like what I have read so far. I intend to print out most of it (perhaps not the references) as I want to read it all, and detest reading from screen. I like the fact that when he expresses his own opinion and conclusions, he does so clearly, and there is no confusion between scientific findings or theories and his own ideas. His concern for his own children, and others being ‘conned’ into wearing glasses, makes me feel that he would not resent contact from someone in this community suggesting that myopia can not only be halted, but also reduced. If no one else volunteers, I will do so as soon as I have finished reading the manual.


Maybe because I’ve been following EM since 2016 and consider myself a simple thinker, I’ve always thought differentials and normalized were appropriate and an extension of @jakey 's hippy lingo, using words descriptive of their meaning, i.e. the different Rx for close-up, and the reduced distance lens is the new normal (for now). Jake’s sometimes unique vocabulary is peppered throughout the blog and this forum…these 2 new terms were never bothersome for me any more than the others when the intended meaning is understood, but everyone has word preferences. Calling them close-up glasses is too un-Jakey though :smile:


I am still reading the manual with great interest, especially since I have reached section on page 82 on the effects of permanent uncorrection (in my case zero correction) and the contrary outcomes of the research on this. N = 1, but I can confirm that 30 years of zero correction other than for the little driving I do, has not increased my myopia.

1 Like

Overall Recommendations can be found on page 306 of the pdf, or page number 294.

His book is on Amazon :
However it is the 2017 edition and not his 2019 updated edition like the pdf.

I have read large parts of the manual, and skimmed the rest, and although he does not seem to be aware of the possibility of reversing myopia, he seems to be very open-minded. I decided to send him an email, with a very subtle suggestion to look at the website. This is what I wrote:

"One of the members of the forum on the website posted a link to your excellent manual. I have read this manual with great interest, and am very impressed with the thoroughness of your research and the excellent organisation and presentation of the content. I have been myopic for 60 years and have found much of relevance to my condition.

I am touched by your concern for people with myopia, especially children who could be hastily diagnosed as myopes and led down the path of lens induced myopia. Thank you for making your manual available free of charge."

This may just make him curious enough to look at the website, but what he will make of Jake’s self-mockery,rantings and ramblings :grinning: is anybody’s guess. If he is sufficiently concerned about the eyesight of his own children, he might persist and find the back to 20/20 success stories sufficiently convincing to have a good look at this possibility.


I have a problem with the terminology as well. For a while I though that normalised referred to the full prescription, before working out that it refers to a reduced prescription for distance vision (what’s normal about that?). Then there is the reduced prescription for close-up vision (differentials). The noun ‘differential’ is defined as ‘a difference between amounts of things’ and grammatically it does not have a plural. If there is a reluctance to change the terminology, there should at least be a clear definition of each term right at the beginning of the journey.

I presume the idea is that you normalize your overprescription :slight_smile:

But if it is not an overprescription? We are assuming here that all optometrists dole out overprescriptions. What is the difference between an overprescription and a ‘full’ prescription. I assume 20/20 is a full prescription and not an over-prescription.

Thank you for sharing this book. I’m going to add it to my list of books :grin: . I hope the writer would answer Hannie’s email and really dig into EM and eventually have his children’s eyesight back to 20/20.

The word normalize and differentials is now so ‘normal’ to me that I don’t feel it strange anymore. Just like the words “bytes” or “windows” or “word” are for computers :grin: .


Alas, he didn’t reply - but I also didn’t tout endmyopia, and I suppose he gets lots of emails.

I plan to make this thread public.

@Ursa, @Viceroy.Sam, @Varakari, @Mare: you’ve either written multiple posts here, or you’ve voted “no” to the publicity poll, so please check and let me know (either here or pm) if you have any comments which I should delete or modify. I’ve checked through my comments, and there are no quotes from other posts in them, so I think it’s enough if you check your own posts.
I plan to make it public at October 1, but let me know if you need more time than that.


I have no problem with my posts on this thread being moved to public space. In fact, I think it is a very good idea to make this informative manual available to casual visitors to the forum. The squabble on terminology in this thread might be a bit confusing for the casual visitor, but it would need all of us who took part in this squabble to remove all our posts relating to the terminology. I would be happy to do so if all the others agree.

1 Like

Public is fine… appreciate you asking, thanks :+1:

In our local WeChat group, we do call “differentials” "看近镜” (direct translated as “near-looking glasses” and “Normalized” “看远镜” (translated as “Far-looking glasses”), so it can be easily understood, and if new group members want to know more, we can explain how to get those near and far looking glasses :rofl:


I love this :smiley: @jakey we should change the terminology to this :smiley:

1 Like