SCEPCOP Forum

Except that this will have been something that many people could feasibly have done on their own had they known about it in time. Regarding risks, it would be easy enough to warn people not to look directly at the sun, regardless of what they might read in some of the older literature. The other commonly cited risk is that a more serious eye condition could go undetected or untreated due to faith in natural methods. However, that is moot if you come for an eye exam and nothing out of the ordinary is found. Like I said, I don't seriously expect this to happen, but I think it should be standard for eye doctors to inform people who are just beginning to "need glasses" about this option, with the caveat that there is no guarantee that it will work, and let them do their own research and make their own decision.

I talked to a behavioral optometrist about this. He said that yes, reversing nearsightedness is possible, and he has helped patients do it. However, he says that there is a physical limit to what can be reversed, and that exaggerated claims have given this pursuit a bad name. He said that the best outcomes tend to occur with mild nearsightedness that has recently developed. He said that his primary goal is stabilization, and he does believe that high nearsightedness could usually have been prevented. He said that he gets referrals for other visual problems (which I confirmed with an optometrist I had previously been to), but not for nearsightedness.

While it seems to be true that there are not yet "properly controlled studies" demonstrating such improvement, it does appear to be well-established that developing nearsightedness can to some extent be controlled, so that it doesn't get worse. See , for example. Stopping the progression of nearsightedness might be practically difficult, since it would involve changing the way you use your eyes, and genetics might even make it impossible in some cases. But it really seems like people should be informed of this option.