What explains people's supposed 'clear flashes' at moderate to high myopia?

Not trying to go against the clear scientific consensus that axial length = more myopia. Playing a bit of devil’s advocate here. When I read the comments section of that other method, I’m perplexed at the people saying they could see clearly after putting it into action.

My cynical bet is that a lot of them haven’t been wearing 20/20 or close to 20/20 correction, and instead they’ve been wearing super reduced stuff, or no glasses at all. Perhaps they find AF or something through the technique, and then that clinical blur adaptation lets them see text very clearly. I’ve got first hand experience of how well blur adaptation will let you see text, it’s insane. So they see the text, and then claim miraculous vision improvement through peripheral vision.

I’m a science guy, so if the science says axial length = myopia, I’ll go with that. You can reverse your axial length? Sure, thanks science. I’d be interested if any studies dealt with these ‘clear flashes’ people are getting though. I don’t understand how the physiology of the eye would allow moderate myopes to get these ‘clear flashes of 20/20 vision’. That other guy has said people with -9 have been able to get clear flashes, I just can’t buy it. What explains the subjective experiences of people with these miraculous improvements in vision?


I’ll go with a temporary corneal counter alignment to the axial malformation. Think of it like the opposite of getting double/triple vision where the stars magically align in such a way that the cornea temporarily counteracts your long-term scleral refractive state in just the right way. However unlike double vision, the math works out so it only lasts for brief periods of time.


Thanks for the response - is this something that can be induced like is claimed?

Very occasionally I wake up and I can see 20/20 without glasses, my eyes feel dry usually. This goes away after five minutes and will not come back for the rest of the day. I think this might be similar to what you’re saying, it feels physical.


It’s also worth noting that 2/3rds of your optical power is in the cornea, so it can make quite the difference.


There are special contact lenses that you can wear overnight which will reshape your cornea to see 20/20 without lenses during the day, but I don’t like that idea at all.

1 Like

I think in my case it’s just some weird dry eye fluid stuff that’s on the top of my eyes after a long REM sleep. And screw that Otho-K stuff, I’d rather have a normal axial length :grin:


Yes it’s very easy to make a magnifying lens with water, so fluids can play a major role sometimes.


In my experience this is not the case. In this summer I was doing some experiments without glasses. It was a bright sunny day and I’ve spent a half day without any glasses and without any close-up (driving, walking, etc.). I was using maybe 3.0 normalized at then? Of course it was blurry, sometimes a bit less blurry. But then I had a moment sometimes about 1-2 PM where it got totally clear. And by totally clear I mean like as I would have put on a full prescription glasses, so not even normalized clear. It was not just being able to read text, or there is not enough details so I cannot see blur, but I was clearly be able to see individual leaves 50+ meters away. It lasted for maybe a 5-10 seconds, when I blinked it went away.

By the way I would also really curious what exactly happens during clear flashes. I see some merit in pursuit them, but first I would like to know exactly how it happens. If it some “everything aligns perfectly” thing then it’s fine. But if “use some not normal muscle movements to distort the eye into the a not normal shape” then I would rather not have them.


I’ve had this a couple of times too, I’ve always put it down to blinking the tear fluid in just the right perfect places.

If it was due to some mental realisation (of peripheral vision) as some claim, I would have thought it would last longer than on another blink. A lot of these comments never describe when the clear vision ends :stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like

It was definitely at blinking for me. But even regular AF changes at blinking for me, so alone that would not explain anything I think.

1 Like

Yeah, AF changes on blinking for me too. So it became clear without a blink? Given how the edge of blur seem to get much harder to tell when you get down to lower myopia I think that might explain the long distance clear flashes a bit. It’s more within that range where it can happen, it’s harder to distinguish true blur from unnoticable blur.


If your pupil constricts enough you’ll get a pinhole effect.


My instincts tell me:

  1. if there were some simple way to get back to 20/20 in a year or two, after all this time and all the people Jake has worked with, he would have found it by now

  2. if the claims that people are getting back to 20/20 quickly with another method were true and really happening, there’d be optometrist confirmed reports out there.

Neither are there. Look forward a year, and we’ll all be doing EM. Other systems will be claiming they’re better, but not showing the results. EM is the best.


My clear flashes ended when I got adequate normalized and used them regularly.

Sometimes they lasted for minutes, but never more than 15. I did notice better residual vision afterwards though, until I lost track of what my eyes were doing.


I think most clear flashes are due to corneal effects and are random and fleeting, so they are a poor reference to eyesight improving. I can get a clear flash by simply blinking hard or getting tear film in right place.
I have experienced periods/moments of better focus and clarity that don’t disappear after blinking - those are what to look out for.


I can confirm that people with high myopia get clear flashes. I’m always open to unexplored ideas and this one is definitely a head scratcher.

We’ve gone all Area 51 in earlier years trying anything and everything to find a shortcut through those clear flashes. Yes also Bates Method and all sorts of time intensive things.

Not anything worked. Nobody turned small and grey, grew huge eyes. Or suddenly changed from a middling photography instructor to the next Bates Method sage. :wink:

Wait so maybe one of those things happened?

There are various possible explanations for clear flashes but nothing I’ve gotten all that comfortable with. The thing really is, what’s a process than can be repeated by just about anyone, and produce the same / similar results. And that process, is it realistically feasible, as far as time investment, lifestyle, etc.

That’s where we’re at currently, considering above requirements. If ONE person can have amazing results but we can’t repeat that reliably, it’s not worth much to me or people in general (as far as the goal of having a solid, reliable way out of myopia). Or if the approach requires moving to the woods, abandoning modern life, also less the thing I’m looking to promote.

Actually got an e-mail from a guy the other day who says he’s made very fast gains combining endmyopia and some Bates stuff. I invited him on for a podcast episode (not yet confirmed if he will) to share his take and experiences. Definitely always up for exploring and finding things that we might have missed.


Yes, this is my main problem with everything else. I’m pretty sure there are methods which helps you see better. Vision is subjective ultimately, so you never be able tell if another person see really clear or not. But so far only the Endmyopia method and timeframe proved to be able to actually reverse the myopic conditions. So reduced blur even without active focus or other “vision enhancing” activity. And we also start to have some numbers about reduced axial length.


Are we? Who other than Varakari is measuring axial length? I know that @Sheikh_G has had an offer from his opto friend to have his measured, but I don’t remember him posting on what it was. He is also not that far along the EM journey, so even if he could have it measured regularly, it might be too early to tell. If we could get a few more people willing and able to record this at the beginning and end of their EM journey to 20/20, it would be of great help.


By starting to have numbers I mostly means @Varakari has numbers :smiley: But I remember someone else also mentioned that she had axial length measurement at the start. Also if I remember correctly @Tii_Chen also had measurement at @Varakari, but only once.

1 Like

@jakey, yes, I love the input of people who are trying different things and sharing their experiences. If this fellow had simply stopped at “I’ve played with these concepts , they’ve really helped me and I wonder if they could help someone else” then I would have been all for it. He’s now actually made himself out to be a guru when EM goes out of it’s way to reference science and NOT be a guru. Additionally, the videos throw up nonsense explanations of why he made fast progress and no one else seems to be able to.

My bigger problem with it is that human nature is to always seek the easier, faster way. This method promises that and is going to disappoint lots of people.

@halmadavid and @Ursa, it’s be great if more people were able to do the types of measurements that @Varakari is doing. That level is impractical, but OD confirmed reports aren’t bad when we’re going for something more objective than people just taking our word for it. Since I’m also guilty of not going to the OD, I’ll likely plan a visit sometime. Can’t do it during quarantine of course.