UPDATED! 🚨 Podcast: We Talked To An Optometrist - Who Is Into Reversing Myopia!

Oh, I love that! It look me a while before I could put aside my science blinkers.


I actually thought the same initially, though. I mean, that is what, like 1.50 D undercorrection? Sounds almost like what I did for many years (by 2D…basically wearing “differentials” all the time).


Many younger American optometrists have a bias, as we know, toward overcorrecting…making point light sources at distance as small as possible in effect, or using a full retinoscopy correction as the distance power. If her numbers were based on such a standard bias from that sort of method, she may be undercorrecting by more like 1.0 D…far less than it sounds like at first glance.

This makes sense as a possibility…even with active focus (which it sounds like she’s probably doing since she used the term “shakey”), it’s unlikely one would get near 20/40 consistently at more than 1.0 D of undercorrection.

I loved the astigmatism and anisometropia theory. Makes perfect sense. Not only bad posture when reading, but even during an exam…I’ve even heard of misaligned phoropters…all it takes is a slight tilt in that positioning or the head position to throw things off. So, it could even be measurement error sometimes.

My own theory of progressive astigmatism and anisometropia (which was supported by info in a refraction manual written by an Opthalmologist that I posted a while back) makes even more sense now, in the context of her ideas.

As far as the syntonics, Antonia Orfield utilized it as well, and credited it with possibly even helping with eliminating her last 1/3 or so diopter of myopia that she had for decades after reducing her prescription using a method almost identical to Endmyooia. So, while I’m skeptical of such things, I’ll stay open-minded.

I have also heard of optometrists being able to get faster results than we get here, and it’s attributable to prism training in some articles I have read. But if the biology (axial length) can only change so fast as we assume, why push it and require other compensatory mechanisms like divergence and acommodatative changes to get the reduction faster? What if the system reaches a point where it then plateaus and the person ends up taking just as long to get back to 0.00 D? My guess is that a lot of those principles may work on the less-embedded components (e.g. ciliary) of the myopia.

Looking forward to more chats with her in the future if she is willing!

Great job! I have been looking forward to a podcast like this for a few years. You’ve outdone yourself.


In my case, I was conscious of the discrepancy since I learned to read lens prescriptions as a teenager, and I did things to try to keep it from getting out of hand. Same with astigmatism. My first diopter difference was 0 in terms of spherical equivalent, but 0.50 in terms of cylinder or sphere alone. So it started relatively benignly. It eventually increased to 0.50 sph, and stabilized there. I wore equal powers several times over the years as well (e.g. with contacts). It wasn’t until I was about 19 or 20 that the difference increased to 0.75. At that point, it became physically unsettling.

1 Like

I’m not surprised at all. When you view current refractive status as simply a starting point and believe eyes can become either more nearsighted or more farsighted over time by becoming slightly longer or shorter respectively, it makes total sense that she’s getting results with decreasing hyperopia as well. Not only that, but by learning to utilize a certain amount of ciliary spasm to one’s advantage, you could in theory get even more potential mileage in terms of farsightedness reduction. Many hyperopic people are used to being corrected fully (meaning a bit of myopic blur at distance in some cases, which helps them with near focusing). Sounds familiar but inverse to myopia and what causes it to worsen over time, doesn’t it? :wink: They are essentially wearing something similar to our normalized, so no surprise that the farsightedness (essentially a change in the same direction as less myopia) progresses over time. For them, a normalized would likely be what we consider a full correction or slight overcorrection…but with plus lenses that are a bit weaker (in effect more minus) than they need. The exception may be in terms of what distance that would work best at, but who knows.

1 Like

I met a physician who is in charge of a department geared toward holistic health at…get this…a local hospital! The guy is a naturopathic physician and certified acupuncturist, and got into medicine because he was fed up with the treatments his traditional docs were giving him. So, alternative medicine is really catching on. They use the same word for the department that she used.

Personally, I think I’d stay more toward the traditional side and science end of things, but incorporate the principles of EM (gradual lens reduction when warranted, no overcorrections, offering differentials) if I were an optometrist. But everyone is different. I’m more of a hardcore science guy, blended with art, who believes in feeling your way intuitively through things that life throws at you.


Jake, I agree with all your points.

The first step toward change is accepting the definition of insanity (doing the same thing, the same way, over and over again, and expecting different results :wink:).
I am also thinking that, for most people, it is very hard to see the obvious right under their nose, for a very long time, until something triggers us to pay attention. Or we see it but we have too many reasons why we do not have time to do something about it. Until one day.

Sounds like something triggered her to think about making a change for her own vision.
Who knows, after applying her method on herself for a while may make her more open to really paying attention to endmyopia… but let’s not get ahead of ourselves… :innocent:


I totally noted and appreciated how open you were to some of the things mentioned during the recording - I’m totally taking that as a lesson on staying open-minded in general. Thanks for that, on top of doing these podcasts which have been a real treat! Kudos!

On the thread of meditation, I introduced EM to someone who’s a Real Proper ™ :wink: meditator, she got it right away and it’s been super cool hearing her experiences with it all. (There’s no shortage of unicorn farming around meditation, but proper, grounded stuff is to be found, luckily, just like endmyopia!)


I’d love to have a mini episode chat with a real meditator ™ who also does endmyopia! :slight_smile: :slight_smile:


Absolutely, and in some meditation practices you will encounter no unicorns at all. My meditation practice is based on Vipassana meditation, stripped of most of the metaphysics and rituals of Mahayana Buddhism, especially in the Tibetan form. My Tibetan friends in India keep on trying to convert me - in vain.

My meditation is - doing active focus…
Just checking on posture, blinking, screen distance and doing regular af, doing af when queing somewhere instead of being impatient - does that count as meditation?

Hey Jake, now you’re an eye and meditation guru, how does that sound… :wink:


Meditation is more about what happens inside than what you actually do. Anything can be meditation, but even sitting in lotus for hours can be non-meditation :slight_smile:


For me that would be torture!

1 Like

Awesome Jake! What a pleasure to watch this podcast.

Looking forward to the dialogue continuing.

Julie’s website: https://visionforlifeworks.com/

1 Like

I haven’t watched the video, but I couldn’t get past Jake’s comment I read somewhere about her being -6… how does that fit with her methods?

If I click a youtube link which is not a movie or a music clip (i.e. full entertainment) and I see the minutes counter above around 8 minutes, I usually close the window :smiley:


…I second that: I think every point was made three or more times. If this were my post I would consider editing out the repetitions.

1 Like

Excellent one, @jakey… would be great to get some of the other ~499 professionals (1% of total, unbelievable) who are applyiing this methodology, Can she refer you? Moar is better!

At 1%, the ‘profession’ really seems to have it’s head stuck in the sand.


I know this is not the “suggest me some people to podcast” thread, but if unicorn farming, you should totally do a podcast with Mark :smiley:

By the way for the unicorn farming part I can contribute with KetoAF / Carnivore diet and QiGong (essentially moving meditation) :slight_smile:

1 Like

is that me? though I’d rather keep a lower profile til I’m back to 20/20

I think there’s no shortage of yogis and meditators amongst the optometrists that we have with us lol

1 Like

Checking through Julie’s videos for anything myopia related.
These two videos seem most on point:

Can You Decrease A “Minus” Prescription With Vision Therapy?

Treating Myopia and Nearsightedness


Thanks for posting these, Sam. She admits that it is possible, and that is a good start.