[reducedbloke]

Ok, here's proof of axial length changing following application of the method for years:

There was a member on the forums who was measuring his axial elongation while at the same time applying the reduced lens method. His result is shown in the following plot.[0] It is a significant improvement that can't be ignored, and can't be explained by day to day fluctuations or measurement error. So we know that at least some level of axial elongation can be reversed, and the idea is not complete quackery.

Also the reduced lens method has nothing to do with the Bates method, or undercorrection that leads to blur adaptation.

> "The only scientifically proven intervention for reducing myopia is surgery"

Which surgery reduces myopia? If you're thinking of LASIK then it doesn't change axial elongation.

[0] : https://i.imgur.com/J7WCNfY.png

[stevebmark]

Great. I would love to be proven wrong. My partial blindness from myopia related diseases will likely progress to full blindness as I age. I would love to be shown my worldview is wrong. For example, I didn't know anything about relative light color refractive differences until this HN post. I hope that science discovers a previously unknown mechanism or method for reducing axial elongation.

I also wish that eye doctors knew about the existing evidence. I wish that all opthamologists knew how emmetropization worked, I wish all lenses were peripheral defocused, and I wish more eye doctors prescribed low dose atropine to children, because the evidence is clear. And I sincerely hope that more eye doctors get sued for not using these tools in their practice. Ignoring science based evidence of myopia control in a field where you only need to know about 20 things is negligence.

Proving axial elongation is reversible is not done by a n=1 pet theory forum post measured in a home lab by someone who doesn't know what their choroid is. These forums are filled with people with mild myopia, not high myopes, who are "just starting my journey!" or "I had a small correction and I plateaued!" but are still zealously telling everyone else how to reduce their myopia. n=1 is fine for Reddit tier evidence, but without studies, it doesn't matter.

[stevebmark]

What is the source post of this? Is this chart really showing 0.1 millimeters of vitreous chamber depth change over 4 years? That almost sounds irrelevant, so maybe I'm missing something.