2

Most professional medical associations contend that "myopia cannot be reversed".

Current evidence supports a number of treatment methods for reducing the progression of myopia. While these treatments aim to prevent further worsening of the myopia, they are not able to reverse existing myopia.

Currently there is no cure for myopia.

I quote the American Academy of Ophthalmology

There is no scientific evidence to suggest that eye exercises, vitamins or pills can prevent or cure myopia.

But costly books like

allege that you can improve your myopia! Are these books hooey?

Is there peer-reviewed, scientific evidence or proof of any myope whose myopia reversed itself naturally, and permanently?

Rule out, because I am NOT asking about

  • 3
    There doesn't seem to be a claim here, more a request for information. If there is a notable (widely believed), unreferenced claim, please [edit] it in, with quotes and source. In your three previous attempts to ask this question on various sites, what about the answers failed to address your concerns? When posting here, you need to supply a notable claim, See [ask] for further details of our requirement. – Jiminy Cricket. May 27 '23 at 02:04
  • 4
    Does this answer your question? [Is the Bates Method for improving eyesight efficacious?](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/138/is-the-bates-method-for-improving-eyesight-efficacious) – IMSoP May 27 '23 at 09:58
  • 5
    The question you pose in the title and in bold implies a claim that eyesight can improve *without any intervention at all*; if that was the case, there would be no book to sell. What the books are claiming is an *alternative intervention* which is simpler than surgery, namely a special exercise regime. – IMSoP May 27 '23 at 10:04
  • [Welcome to Skeptics!](https://skeptics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1505/) This question is currently very difficult to answer for three reasons: (1) The title asks for anecdotal examples [e.g. just one case study], but single anecdotes are useless in a world of misdiagnoses, placebo effects and charlatans. We should demand higher quality evidence for medical claims. – Oddthinking May 28 '23 at 01:00
  • (2) Normally what we try to do is find better quality evidence than the claimant has provided, and explain the scientific consensus view. But you have brought summaries issued by peak bodies with the appropriate expertise. It is going to be hard to provide *more convincing*, more accurate summaries than the ones you have already provided. – Oddthinking May 28 '23 at 01:05
  • (3) The actual claims to investigate here are hidden in 5 different books - that is a lot for an answer to sift through in the look for the claim. One of the books has been addressed already in an answer (using research similar to the reports you brought to the table). But how can we dismiss all 20 "Scientifically Proven Ways to Improve Your Eyesight Naturally", for example, in a single answer? Can you narrow down onto a single claim? – Oddthinking May 28 '23 at 01:08
  • My own shortsightedness has improved as I got older (I am over 70, now). I no longer require prescription lenses. I can definitely see clearer into the distance and can now read number plates at the proscribed distance. This is common experience of growing older and is well documented. But it is not infallible. Many cases are worsened with age. – Nigel J May 29 '23 at 21:50
  • @NigelJ, ditto for me. But unfortunately this is a strong indicator of future cataracts. – Ray Butterworth Jun 24 '23 at 20:21
  • @RayButterworth Cataracts are a complication of [severe myopia](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7401976/) it is true, but not of mild myopia. Fortunately, cataracts are easily resolved, these days, by out-patient laser therapy. – Nigel J Jun 25 '23 at 06:33
  • Martin Gardener's *Fads and Fallacies* has a chapter on this: "Throw Away Your Glasses!" – Schwern Jun 25 '23 at 23:42

0 Answers0