3 ms·

No need to apologize, what specifically is triggering the detector? As for myself, I'm spending a lot of time in front of a monitor, and I don't see a downside

• J-dawg 11y ago
  When I was a kid I HATED being short-sighted, and I got into reading about the Bates method and other "natural vision improvement" techniques. I tried all the exercises, read all the books. I just eventually realised that these people are full of crap. At best they're deluded, at worst they are genuinely evil. Why don't these people submit their techniques to a proper trial? Take a cohort of myopic people, have their prescriptions verified by an optometrist, then re-measure their vision at monthly intervals while you teach them your exercises. Why wouldn't you do this? If you could prove it you'd be made for life, you could travel the world teaching your technique. You'd be the person who cured myopia! Yet, like most 'alternative medicine' advocates, they always find a way to dodge any kind of rigorous test. No downside? Well maybe not, apart from the wasted time.
  • amatic 11y ago
    The author of the talk cites this study in support of his method of defocusing or 'print pushing' : http://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2126435 http://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2126435 Small sample (N=28), but highly significant (p<0.0001) change in optical axial length. It also seems he is not selling anything to cure myopia (books, glasses, courses..). The technique is just 'read from a position in which the letters are a bit blurry'. Though, his site does look alternativish.