See gettingstronger.org, frauenfeldclinic.com, myopia.org, etc. Absolutely reversible. No economic benefit. How is it going to be popular if there's nothing to sell? :) Pills, more pills, that's how most non-acute conditions are dealt with.
Not all cases of myopia are caused by misshapen eyeballs. There are a few other conditions which can cause nearsightedness. Some will correct on its own, others can be corrected by some eye exercises. This would explain why some people have success with these methods.
However, if myopia is caused by misshapen eyeballs (the usual cause), then none of those exercises have been observed to be effective in any way.
And don't use argument of no economic benefit. There is always something to sell. See the middle link you have posted which is selling a $150/mo subscription to "reverse myopia"
Heh. Yea no offense taken. I made the account specifically to comment on this topic.
Myopia.org is not pretty, but scammy, I dunno. And gettingstronger.org, look around there. It's not even a site about myopia, but he has some very relevant insights. Forum with a zillion posts discussing the topic. Also he sells nothing on there. So where's the scam potential? And Frauenfeld on "about myopia" has a ton of clinical research references. There is a giant PDF on that page with just about everything worth knowing about myopia.
If it matters most what the sites "look" like, sure. Not Apple.com, no quick fix answers. This topic does require some reading to find meaningful insights.
myopia.org:
first impressions, timecube. Second impressions: wait, myopia isn't inherited? There are 18 loci on 15 chromosomes that are associated with myopia. Carriers of these genes are 10x as likely to have myopia. Bullshit meter for the site is off the scale. Does the same person who writes that site write homeopathic guides? Wait, let's see what else is linked to. Oh, some bullshit cholesterol pills! And on all cholesterol products, "We are currently not supplying this item due to quality issues at the supplier's factory."
And cataract drops! "Carnosine (β-alanyl-L-hystidine), and its topical prodrug formulation N-acetylcarnosine (NAC), is advertised (especially on the internet) to treat a range of ophthalmic disorders associated with oxidative stress, including age-related and diabetic cataracts. No convincing animal studies or masked clinical trials have been reported"
This dude is a snakeoil salesman. The myopia.org site is just the bait.
gettingstronger.org: it has some, hm, interesting opinions that's for sure. He's a chemical engineer and philosopher, though, so not .. quite .. sure about his clinical expertise, especially with regard to myopia. No ads, not selling anything (on the surface) except his slightly-out-there ideas.
Frauenfeld Clinic: with clinic in the name, you immediately think it's run by a doctor -- right? Welllllll.... it was launched seven years ago by a "holistic ophthalmology practitioner" that signs his posts only with "Alex;" The current curator is "Jake Steiner," who claims to have fixed his own myopia with "this amazing program." His training in the area is self proclaimed as, "[...] tak[ing] dozens of classes in ophthalmology, stud[ying] optometry, and read[ing] tens of thousands of pages of myopia studies" His consults start at $10k.
Did you read the PDF with a whole lot of the interesting research on the subject? Pretty brilliant stuff there, and not related to selling of anything. Can't comment on Steiner consults, didn't see any way to actually buy or pay - looked to me more like a way to say "go ask somebody else", if I remember.
Also gettingstronger isn't very much out there on the myopia topic at all. Check out scholar.google.com and just type in the keywords that Todd talks about. That's some pretty established premises, that hardly anybody is arguing against.
My point was to suggest some ways to work out the myopia problem. I for one used to depend on -3.00 glasses that I haven't needed in a few years, thanks to the ideas on those and other sites like it. It is fascinating how often it's more about being right, than looking into options (which can't really point at you there, you clearly looked at the sites). Pseudo myopia, near-induced transient myopia, lens-induced myopia, those are all very key pieces to the puzzle. The concept of the "dynamic eye", which changes specifically based on sight and focal plane, is another.
Put it all together, and you aren't necessarily stuck with glasses forever. :)
>There are 18 loci on 15 chromosomes that are associated with myopia. Carriers of these genes are 10x as likely to have myopia.
That is pathological myopia. Most myopia is not pathological myopia and is not inherited. (did you even read the article?) The site is bullshit, but so is your comment.
