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?