Do you think it would actually be accepted and not removed or edited to say it’s not possible?
What if the passage was written in such a way that the mainstream accepted it? I don’t mind helping write some of the prose, but I don’t find generating references, citations, footnotes, and evidence fun, so so someone else would have to do that.
What if we just write about reversing spasm of acommodation and NITM only, and stick to accepted language and have lots of studies to back it up? I honestly think going into reversal of multi diopter myopia is something that wikipedia is not quite ready for yet. Eventually, yes. But we need to start somewhere, start small.
Also, if you reverse NITM over and over, guess what…you’re doing the real deal. As I’ve said before, technically, only very low myopia is reversible. But we do it over and over again. No one has to know that, yet. I feel like being conservative is best.
I recently asked a mainstream, but very careful optometrist how much change he’s seen in extreme cases over time in people over 40 in the hyperopic direction. He said quite a bit. I said, “like multiple diopters?”. His answer was “Yes.” And that is because he’s careful to try not to overcorrect, in my opinion.
If we can just stop overcorrection, and push optimal correction for distance, and intermediate lenses for near, I think we are good. A lot of people will improve without even trying, which is what we want. It needs to be clear this is not about an exercise, but reducing spasm, using good habits, and proper posture and lenses for clear vision at distance and comfortable vision at near.
I’ve seen a few people say they have improved corrected to just about 20/20. I don’t see why it wouldn’t be possible for most.