Progression of 'belief' in Endmyopia

“Endmyopia? What reversing your myopia? Someone’s trying to sell me something, this has to be a joke.”

“Okay, so apparently there are a lot of people saying they’re doing this. That isn’t proof. I’ll give it a try.”

“I lost half a diopter of myopia, apparently due to ciliary spasm? That’s alright, but I still have my doubts as to whether all of my myopia will be reversed”

“Okay, so if I can reduce another three quarters over time, I guess Endmyopia is real.”

reduces three quarters

“Hmm, needs more improvement than this. That’s a decent amount, but needs more to be sure…”

Anyone else find themselves going to ludicrous lengths to find a way that this isn’t all real? :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye: @AznDudeIsOn


No, can’t say I had your level of doubt from the beginning. Jake made a compelling case for how and why the process works. I do understand people having doubts though. EM is far from what we’ve been told all our lives.

It helped that I wanted reduced lenses anyway, so I had nothing to lose.

Interesting question. Will be interesting to see how others respond.


I don’t think it’s real, half the time.

I don’t think I’m real, most of the time. Impostor syndrome, big time. :joy: Thankfully never actually attempted to appear legit.

Speaking of though, we should have this timeline of progression of “belief” somewhere so that people get a bit of an idea of what they’ll likely experience?


Same as @Kevin.L, I actually believed it right from the start. All my doubts were about whether lil’ old me with the attention span of a baby squirrel could possibly digest all that overwhelming information and stay committed for years. My problem was that I was fresh out of school and not quite emancipated from the system’s favourite narratives about achievement: that what was long and arduous was basically impossible to the isolated individual, that if it is hard you won’t stick to it, that you can’t possibly take such a huge endeavour and fix yourself without support from the industry institution, and that failure was the opposite of success (rather than, as I learned, just another part of it)

In a way, I’m glad that I spent a few months doing things wrong and not improving then took a break for over a year because now I know that I’ve had the most spectacular failure already. So I can focus on the process and on troubleshooting instead of being held back by old patterns, the same that won’t try to succeed if failure is an option. Thank God for neuroplasticity, because I swear that helplessness gets so thoroughly drilled in our brains during our “education” to the point of making us incapable of doing anything.


I wouldn’t have gotten started if I didn’t think it could work. There were enough independent accounts of it, but not nearly enough to make it feel ‘established’. I keep saying ‘0.25 more diopters and then it’s legit’ for some reason :thinking:


I think the biggest problem is that there is two main phase for the improvements:

  1. Initial improvements when you reduce overprescription and when your ciliary release
  2. Improvements from… well we don’t know, let’s assume from axial length shorthening :slight_smile:

The question is always that when you reach the second phase or your improvements are still the first phase which is not “really” improvements. I mean you see better, but your eye biology didn’t changed. What makes it worse that the first one is much faster. So you hit a wall with the second.

It would be clear if axial length could be easily measured, but so far there is no way to do it at home :slight_smile:


I wonder why people are not so keen on saying it’s axial shortening. If that’s the cause of myopia, I’m not sure how else it can be explained :thinking:

Yes, that’s the logical explanation. But we have absolutely no data to confirm that. Except for @Varakari’s. If he goes back to 20/20 and there is a clear axial shortening, then I will say without a problem that it’s axial shortening :slight_smile:


That’s it. Maybe there’s a collective imposter syndrome going on, maybe we are the super cool guys who can reverse axial change :stuck_out_tongue:


Nearing 1 diopter improvement, and I still have those moments of doubt that I’ve actually improved my eyesight. Brain is trying to rationalise all those years spent in comfy ignorance that my eyesight was out of my control.


I definitely believed in EndMyopia before I knew about EndMyopia.

About a decade ago, I remember seeing some of my classmates being prescribed glasses, and they’d just like not wear them. And after a while I asked about it and some of them they’re are just like idk i don’t really need them anymore. While some people who did the same still had worsening vision. And I’m like something fishy is going on here. Later on, when I had physics class and learned about how lens work, my reactions was that vision seems to be by far the most simple topic in physics. There must be a way to use this knowledge to improve vision, and I had some ideas, I just never got around to actually trying the ideas. And when I found out EndMyopia years later, I’m like oh! this guru guy did the heavy lifting of actually trying the things I wanted to try and he’s giving out the information out free! and finding out that we could buy glasses on discount online without insurance was the most mind blowing thing because I grew up thinking glasses are some sort of super expensive thing that I should only get when my insurance allows me to get it for free.

But even though I logically know that vision improvement is possibly and that I must have made vision improvement. (Note, I don’t spend any time with good vision, I just make a reduction immediately.) Every time I make a reduction, I’m like, man, this might be my last reduction; IDK this seems too good to be true. I just might be stuck this way forever. Did I really make reductions before? On the other hand though, the next time I make a normalized reduction marks the halfway point. Must be an undeniable truth then.?


I personally knew people whose eye sight had “spontaneously” gotten better, so somewhere deep inside me I always kinda thought it was possible. Dabbled in the Bates Method and eye exercises almost a decade ago, and while I didn’t entirely ditch my glasses I ended up wearing much too weak ones, so no progress.
I did end up using something like a differential system after that - no glasses at all when reading books, and a pair of glasses for screen use that were about what I needed but didn’t give me any additional challenge, so things didn’t progress in either a positive or negative direction.
Was pretty much primed when I found endmyopia, “so THIS is what I was looking for”. :sunglasses:


I had belief because I’d tried something like this already on my own back in 2002 or so. I managed to permanently reduce my prescription by half a diopter or so before giving up.

What changed for me this time was reading Jake’s mention of 0.75-1.0 diopters per year. That is what I missed the first time around, a full understanding of how long it takes. And a better understanding of how little even half a diopter improvement looks like in terms of centimeters (very little change at my level of myopia!)

But even then there was doubt. That went away one magical night when I took my old computer glasses of 15 years (used for PC work, essentially diffs, but about half a diopter too strong), and saw stars as dots on a very dark site (fully dilated pupil). Since astronomy prescription is about 0.5 diopters stronger than the usual opto prescription, and since active focus doesn’t work that well in those conditions, that was proof to me that I was at least 1.5 diopters better baseline. It was a glorious experience, and I vowed to stay with this until I get that experience naked eye. The stars were better than they’d bee with my original prescription.

When done right, this really works. It just takes a long time and can be hard to see concrete evidence of real change sometimes.


I took a measurement of my AL last weekend as a start point (never did it before) when I have already got 1 D reduction from my initial full correction, so I think I have passed phase 1 and started phase 2:), and plan to take a data point every D I reduce in future, the result sheet also have bunch of other parameters of my eyes: Corneal curvature, Corneal thickness,Anterior chamber depth, Lens thickness, Vitreous thickness… In the end (years later?), I might be able to tell which parameter(s) is/are more related to the reduction than the others.


I technically have reduced -0.50 Sph, and -1.00 Cyl in both eyes. Which is incredible in itself. But I have high myopia, started at -7.75 sph, so the changes dont feel significant?
I dont know if I’m still in the ‘ciliary spasm’ stage, or my ‘eyes are shortening its axial length to focus now’ stage.
I’d like to get 1 Diopter sph down. And see how I feel. :joy:
Some days, I’m like oh boy, can my eyes really do this?


I kinda relate to the renewed scepticism with every reduction, but if anything I think that’s proof that it’s working. You’re considering this improved eyesight a new normal like you’ve never known another baseline vision. Nothing like the quick fix of glasses, no, you’ve successfully rewired your brain; you can’t feel the improvement because your old standards are all gone. By the time you’ll get to 20/20 you’ll be taking your eyesight for granted just like all the emmetropes out there (though with a lot more awareness)
The other day, I tried on my +.5s and looked out the window and I went like “no, I couldn’t have possibly been this blind!”. Except yes I was, I was worse than that. But my brain is no longer adapted to that level of blur.


My husband and I never wore glasses and still dont. My parents started wearing bifocals in their 50s. I was most indignant when my son was given glasses.

I firmly believed that there was something out there that would tell me how my child could get rid of his glasses. Stubborn belief. So when I heard the Guru talk about the science and read about all the people on the community my belief in EM was locked.

Jake’s continued commitment, and the community’s enthusiasm and camaraderie, thats what makes me believe in EM. That it will work for me I know because it worked for them.


We should see the results of axial shortening.
Thats the main point.

To release the ciliary spasm and reduce the prescription is actually CHILDS PLAY.
Any body can do this.
I absolutely agree with NottNott

Well … and he’s not the first. Just that I never intended for this scale of endmyopia so when we did play with axial length change measurement back in the day, I didn’t ask participants for copies of their records. :speak_no_evil:

Definitely more data will be useful - though I suspect even if we have bulletproof … proof, it’s not going to change anything about the narrative. Considering that myopia cause is well known and yet the treatment that causes its progression is still the primary way myopia is managed. :wink:


I’m pretty sure about that, yes :slight_smile: More data is only useful to help those who are unsure to lean to the “Endmyopia works” side. It won’t convince those who think it’s simply not possible. It sounds paradoxical, but the practice proves that if someone’s mind is set on a topic, a direct proof won’t really change it. If there is 0.1% doubt, then it can. But if there is no doubt, then it won’t do anything.
And because the mainstream (professional) narrative is that “No way it can work”, it won’t change it. It’s funny, but in some way the abstract “mainstream narrative” totally works like it would be a single person (because of various reasons): there is no doubt, so direct proof won’t do anything.