Opinions on how much progress will get people to accept it's possible?

Has anyone thought about how much progress you want to have before you tell much of anyone about it? How much progress do you think would get the attention of most mainstream eyecare professionals if you started at -4 or -5? Probably not 1D. Maybe 1.5D would raise a few eyebrows?? 2D? Being able to read 20/20 easily and consistently under adverse testing conditions? Or is it likely a lot of professionals would simply dismiss the readings of the previous professionals that showed you used to be worse?



I work in the healthcare, but not in optometry. Sometimes, we get referrals to re-check findings from other places. I’d say the reputation of that other place forms the first impression of how reliable their findings are. Say, if it is from another hospital, it would be really difficult to refute their findings even though it is not uncommon that the findings can still be questionable. We might then follow-up the same case a few times at our facility before making a conclusive result.

Most of the optometrist offices are however very small and offer same level of care (as comparing to walk-in, general hospital, tertiary centre, etc for other medical problems). I’d think the second person will probably dismiss the conclusion of the first person, or tell you that your progression is likely temporary, depending on that person’s personality.


A very large part of the diagnostic / consultative aspect of myopia is centered around lens sales. In my generally inconsequential opinion, no amount of reduction is going to matter to those who make a living selling glasses.

If the reduction process makes MONEY that’s when you’ll get attention. :wink:


I think this depends on whom you want to convince and what your measurement standards are.

Trying to convince a mainstream optometrist with personal claims and a few old photos… will be hard, even with multi-diopter improvement. My intention, if I can improve again, is to get the attention of some intellectuals, by gathering a boatload of detailed data. For that case, I think maintaining over 0.5 dpt/y from axial shortening, complete with lots of refractive measurements that are coherent with the change, should do the trick.

In this thread, Forrest’s theory on astigmatism just came up again. Look at this for an example how utterly uncaring optometry is. They basically acknowledge that certain eye movement could cause astigmatism, and then they write a little article on the theory, and that’s it!

This fits what Jake just said exactly. There’s no money in natural eye movement, so there’s no interest in further pursuing this. Voters don’t understand capitalism, and so the system pays for sickness instead of health, determining the amount paid purely based on the amount of medicine sold, and not at all on the amount of health gained. This is why there’s a huge market for lenses, but barely any market for vision habit advice.


@Varakari, you’re right…they don’t even generally seem to care as a whole how tangential, commercialized improvement products like orthoK or newer plus zone contact lenses work. And the few mainstream optometrists I’ve met who agree that multi diopter changes can happen over time in any direction, don’t really seem to be into how…unless they’re behavioral.

I think we are about to enter a strange phase where the retail products are ahead of the mainstream consensus on what’s possible…that is, you’re going to see glasses and contacts claiming to halt increases in a certain percentage of people, but practitioners who don’t totally buy it, but sell them anyway. I don’t think they’ll ever be able to claim the products reverse anything, but it will happen more in the results anyway and become semi common knowledge. There are already several products like that out now! All use a slightly lower minus power at near. There are already a good number of these contacts prescribed and in use among the population. It’s a race among the makers.

Of course you can improve again…eyes increase in hyperopia all the time. It has to all be the same.


For me it would have to be 2 diopters minimum. Less than that I’m sure skeptic optometrists would claim it was simply ciliary spasm. Even if you get back to 20/20 I have heard of someone on here who reduced a bunch of diopters and the optometrist told them they were becoming presbiopic


I agree 2 diopters minimum, and maybe 2.5. Reason is, I’ve seen people get over corrected by up to 2, but never heard of more. So, it’s probably unlikely that a 2D or larger improvement wouldn’t show up in a vision test.

For me, I’m starting around -4 (yes, I was once -5, but am not going to count that as my starting point because it was a long time ago). So, once I hit -2 for full correction (e.g. night driving) I might consider sharing my story with more people. I think that would be hard to dismiss.


In my experience, professionals simply dismiss even their OWN readings, made by their own little hands and minds months before.

I think a 2 or 3D progress is enought to shock most people. But really, 0.5D progress, should shock everyone. They told us this thing was not fixable and permanent and there was no variation. So if you can cut it down even half a diopter, means that you were overprescribed and from there you can extrapolate all the other overprescriptions that happened.


That is a really good point. Unfortunately, overprescribing is common. I know I was over prescribed each and every time, except for twice…when the eye doctor told me he was able to cut the power a bit. I went through at least 5 stronger “prescriptions” between the age of 8 and 16. The initial one, -1.5, was likely one of the biggest overcorrections. Same with the second one, -3.25, and the third one, -4.50. The next one was only 1/4. The final overcorrection came from a technician who didn’t know to prescribe contacts properly, and gave me the higher of the power from the two eyes, putting me at -5.